Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_pr_review_commentB
  3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states it requires write permissions but doesn't disclose other traits such as whether the operation is mutable, idempotent, or any side effects (e.g., does it trigger notifications?). The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the main action, and includes necessary prerequisite mention. No wasted words, though it could benefit from parameter context.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given 7 required parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not cover return values (though output schema exists, unknown to agent), error cases, or additional context about the comment creation process. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0% for 7 required parameters. The description provides zero explanation of what each parameter means (e.g., 'line', 'commit_id', 'path'), leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names. This is a critical gap.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description explicitly states 'Create a review comment on a specific line of a pull request's diff', clearly identifying the action (create) and resource (review comment on PR diff line). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_commits' which is read-only.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description mentions required environment variables (GITHUB_MCP_ENABLE_WRITE=1 and GITHUB_TOKEN), providing a prerequisite. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (only sibling is list_commits, which is clearly different) and no exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

• list_commitsA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided; description discloses basic behavior (listing commits, ordering, optional ref) but omits details like pagination (limit default of 20) and authentication requirements.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Single sentence, 14 words, front-loaded with the action. No unnecessary information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  With an output schema present, the description adequately covers input semantics and basic behavior. Missing explicit mention of the default limit, but it is defined in the schema.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0%; description adds meaning for the 'sha' parameter as a ref, but does not explain 'limit', 'owner', or 'repo' beyond their names.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'commits', specifies the scope (default branch or given ref, newest first), and is distinct from the sibling tool create_pr_review_comment.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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, nor any conditions or exclusions. The description only implies listing commits.

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