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. The description only states what the tool does ('Search GitHub repositories') without mentioning any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error handling, or what the output contains. For a search tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 at just two words ('Search GitHub repositories'). It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero wasted words. While it may be too brief for other dimensions, for conciseness alone it's perfect.

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 that there's an output schema (which means the description doesn't need to explain return values) and the input schema has 100% coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and multiple similar search tools among siblings, the description should provide more context about when to use this specific search tool versus others. It meets the minimum but has clear gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Search GitHub repositories' clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('GitHub repositories'), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_code', 'search_issues', or 'search_users' that also perform GitHub searches but on different resources. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. There are multiple search tools in the sibling list (search_code, search_issues, search_users), but the description doesn't mention any of them or specify that this tool is for repository searches specifically. No context or exclusions are provided.

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