GitHub MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it performs a write operation (implied by 'push'), creates multiple Git objects (blobs, tree, commit), and updates the branch atomically. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or whether it overwrites existing files. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by implementation details. Zero waste; every sentence adds value by explaining the atomic process. Efficiently structured for quick understanding.

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 a complex write operation with 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is mostly complete. It covers the what and how but lacks usage context, error details, or output explanation, though the output schema mitigates the latter. Slightly incomplete for a mutation tool without annotations.

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 already documents all parameters (owner, repo, branch, files, message). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'multiple files' and 'branch' but not elaborating on parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 action ('push multiple files'), the resource ('to a branch'), and the method ('using the Git Data API'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_or_update_file (single file) or create_commit_status (status update). It specifies atomic creation of blobs, tree, commit, and branch ref update, which is specific and non-tautological.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_or_update_file (for single files) or other Git operations. The description mentions 'push multiple files' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, such as needing write access or branch existence, or when not to use it (e.g., for single-file updates).

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