GitHub MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, how pagination works (beyond schema details), or what the output includes (e.g., run statuses, timestamps). For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('List workflow runs') and efficiently adds scope ('for a repository or specific workflow'). Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent 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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for output details in the description. However, the lack of behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, pagination behavior) and usage guidelines leaves gaps that could hinder effective tool invocation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'owner' as 'Repository owner', 'workflow_id' with filtering details). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering by repository or workflow, which is already covered. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'List workflow runs for a repository or specific workflow.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('workflow runs'), and distinguishes the scope (repository or specific workflow). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workflows' or 'list_check_runs', which reduces it from a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as requiring repository access, or compare it to similar tools like 'list_workflows' (which lists workflow definitions) or 'list_check_runs' (which might list check runs). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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