Get the GitHub token for creating issues in the taxsort-mcp repo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| npub | No | Required. Your Nostr public key (npub1...) for credit billing. | |
| dpop_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, description only states a read operation. Does not disclose behavior like rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. Minimal 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded and to the point. Could add more detail without becoming verbose.
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 two parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description lacks context on how the token is returned, the role of npub and dpop_token, and any required sequence. Incomplete for reliable agent use.
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?
Description does not explain the parameters; schema covers npub with description but dpop_token has none (50% coverage). Tool description adds no semantic value beyond schema.
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?
Clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'GitHub token', and purpose 'for creating issues in the taxsort-mcp repo'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like taxsort_get_anthropic_key.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like taxsort_get_anthropic_key. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes and thorough descriptions. However, the sheer number (84) and some similarly named tools (e.g., check_balance vs check_authority_balance) could cause minor confusion for an agent.
All tools share the 'taxsort_' prefix, but the naming pattern is inconsistent: some use verb_noun (check_balance), while others use noun_noun (account_statement) or other structures. This mixed convention reduces predictability.
84 tools is excessive for typical MCP server coherence. While the domain is broad, many tools seem administrative (e.g., get_anthropic_key) and could be consolidated. The high count likely overwhelms agents.
The tool set covers the core tax classification workflow (import, classify, summarize) plus auxiliary systems (payments, credentials, coupons, notarization). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no CSV export), but overall coverage is comprehensive.