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 users') without mentioning any behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output contains. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, 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 with just two words, making it front-loaded and zero-waste. Every word earns its place by specifying both the action and target. While it could be more informative, it's structurally efficient without redundancy.

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 handles return values), 100% schema description coverage, and no complex nested objects, the description is minimally complete for a search operation. However, it lacks context about authentication requirements, rate limits, or how results are structured, which would be helpful despite the output schema. It's adequate but leaves gaps in operational context.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's already in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters. The baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, as the schema adequately documents parameters like query syntax, sort options, and pagination. The description doesn't compensate with additional context about parameter interactions or examples.

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 ('Search') and resource ('GitHub users'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from other search tools like search_code, search_issues, and search_repositories by specifying it's for users. However, it doesn't specify what kind of search this is (e.g., global GitHub user search vs. repository-specific user search), which prevents 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. There's no mention of when to use search_users versus get_user (for a specific user) or list_collaborators (for repository collaborators), nor any context about prerequisites, permissions, or limitations. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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