GitHub MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions authentication context ('authenticated user') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains. This is a significant gap for a tool with 5 parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, but the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, authentication requirements) that would make it more complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the 'username' parameter's default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'repositories starred by a user or the authenticated user', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'list_repositories' or 'list_gists', but the resource specificity is adequate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication for listing the authenticated user's stars) or compare with similar tools like 'list_repositories' or 'search_repositories'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.