Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@parse-mcp-server Create a new user named john_doe"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for Parse Server and the Parse JS SDK. This server provides complete integration with the Parse Platform, enabling AI assistants to interact with Parse databases, users, files, and more.
create-object - Create a new object in a Parse class
get-object - Retrieve an object by its ID
update-object - Update an existing object
delete-object - Delete an object by its ID
query-objects - Query objects with filters, sorting, and pagination
signup-user - Register a new user
login-user - Authenticate a user
logout-user - Log out the current user
get-current-user - Get the currently authenticated user
update-user - Update user information
delete-user - Delete a user account
request-password-reset - Send password reset email
query-users - Query users with filters
upload-file - Upload a file (base64 or URL)
delete-file - Delete a file
get-file-url - Get the URL of a file
create-role - Create a new role
get-role - Get role information
add-users-to-role - Add users to a role
remove-users-from-role - Remove users from a role
query-roles - Query all roles
get-schema - Get schema for a class
get-all-schemas - Get all schemas
create-class - Create a new class with fields
add-field - Add a field to an existing class
delete-field - Delete a field from a class
delete-class - Delete a class
get-config - Get Parse Config parameters
set-config - Set Parse Config parameters
run-cloud-function - Execute a Cloud Code function
subscribe-query - Subscribe to real-time query updates
aggregate - Run aggregation pipeline queries
distinct - Get distinct values for a field
parse://docs/getting-started - Getting started guide
parse://docs/objects - Objects documentation
parse://docs/queries - Queries documentation
parse://docs/users - Users documentation
parse://docs/files - Files documentation
parse://docs/roles - Roles and ACL documentation
parse://docs/cloud-code - Cloud Code documentation
parse://docs/live-queries - Live Queries documentation
parse://docs/schema - Schema documentation
parse://docs/security - Security best practices
Related MCP server: Files.com MCP Server
npm install -g @asaje/parse-mcp-servergit clone https://github.com/asaje/parse-mcp-server.git
cd parse-mcp-server
npm install
npm run buildThe server requires the following environment variables:
PARSE_SERVER_URL=http://localhost:1337/parse
PARSE_APP_ID=your_app_id
PARSE_JAVASCRIPT_KEY=your_javascript_key # Optional
PARSE_MASTER_KEY=your_master_key # Required for admin operationsAdd to your Claude Desktop configuration (~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json):
{
"mcpServers": {
"parse": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["@asaje/parse-mcp-server"],
"env": {
"PARSE_SERVER_URL": "http://localhost:1337/parse",
"PARSE_APP_ID": "your_app_id",
"PARSE_MASTER_KEY": "your_master_key"
}
}
}
}Or if installed globally:
{
"mcpServers": {
"parse": {
"command": "parse-mcp-server",
"env": {
"PARSE_SERVER_URL": "http://localhost:1337/parse",
"PARSE_APP_ID": "your_app_id",
"PARSE_MASTER_KEY": "your_master_key"
}
}
}
}Add to your MCP settings:
{
"parse-mcp-server": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["@asaje/parse-mcp-server"],
"env": {
"PARSE_SERVER_URL": "http://localhost:1337/parse",
"PARSE_APP_ID": "your_app_id",
"PARSE_MASTER_KEY": "your_master_key"
}
}
}Tool: create-object
Arguments: {
"className": "GameScore",
"data": {
"score": 1337,
"playerName": "Sean Plott",
"cheatMode": false
}
}Tool: query-objects
Arguments: {
"className": "GameScore",
"where": {
"score": { "$gt": 1000 }
},
"order": "-score",
"limit": 10
}Tool: signup-user
Arguments: {
"username": "john_doe",
"password": "securepassword",
"email": "john@example.com",
"additionalFields": {
"displayName": "John Doe"
}
}MIT
Add a new field to an existing Parse class
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| className | Yes | The name of the class | |
| fieldName | Yes | The name of the new field | |
| fieldType | Yes | The type of the field | |
| targetClass | No | Target class for Pointer or Relation types |
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. It only says 'Add', but does not mention permission requirements, whether the operation is persistent or reversible, potential errors (e.g., if field already exists), or side effects on existing data. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 a single sentence with a clear verb and object, front-loaded with 'Add a new field' and no filler. It is concise and to the point, earning its place 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?
As a schema-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits critical context such as what happens if the field already exists, whether a master key is required, and what the response indicates. The rich sibling list and 4-parameter complexity suggest more context is needed for safe and correct invocation.
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 provides descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so the schema already explains what each parameter means. The description adds only the resource context ('existing Parse class') and no additional parameter-level detail. This aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('new field') with an explicit scope ('to an existing Parse class'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create-class and delete-field. It immediately conveys what the tool does.
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 phrase 'to an existing Parse class' provides clear context that this is for adding fields to already-created classes, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the distinction is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add objects to a relation field
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objectId | Yes | The source object's ID | |
| className | Yes | The source class name | |
| targetIds | Yes | Array of target object IDs to add to the relation | |
| relationField | Yes | The name of the relation field | |
| targetClassName | Yes | The target class name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is an append or replace operation, what happens if target IDs already exist, or any side effects. The mutation behavior is opaque.
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 a concise single sentence that communicates the core action without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Add', though it is under-specified, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
With 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to cover important context like operation semantics, side effects, or result expectations. This is insufficient for a mutation tool of moderate complexity.
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% coverage with each parameter described (source object ID, class names, relation field, target IDs). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so with high coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the action ('Add') and the resource ('objects to a relation field'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remove-relation' and 'query-relation' by focusing on the add operation, though it does not explicitly mention the source and target objects.
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 such as 'remove-relation' or 'add-users-to-role'. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add users to a role
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userIds | Yes | Array of user objectIds to add | |
| roleName | Yes | The name of the role |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It does not clarify whether users are appended to existing role membership or replace it, whether users must already exist, or what the tool returns after success.
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 a single short sentence with no extraneous words, achieving maximum conciseness. However, its brevity comes at the cost of being tautological with the tool name.
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?
For a simple two-parameter add operation, the schema covers parameter semantics well. Yet the description lacks context about expected behavior, return values, and usage scenarios, which is especially noticeable given the absence of an output schema and 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?
The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (userIds as array of objectIds, roleName as name), yielding 100% coverage. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Add users to a role' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'add-users-to-role' with hyphens replaced by spaces. It contains no new information about scope, side effects, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'remove-users-from-role'.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other role-related tools such as create-role, get-role, or remove-users-from-role. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run an aggregation pipeline on a Parse class (similar to MongoDB aggregation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pipeline | Yes | Array of aggregation stages ($match, $group, $project, $sort, etc.) | |
| className | Yes | The name of the class |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential performance implications, return format, or error behavior for invalid pipelines.
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 a single, focused sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose with zero wasted words.
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?
The tool has moderate complexity (aggregation pipeline), no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too sparse to cover important context like return values, limitations, or examples, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters, so the schema already provides the heavy lifting. The description adds a useful MongoDB comparison but little else beyond what the schema states about pipeline stages.
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 tool runs an aggregation pipeline on a Parse class, using the specific verb 'Run' and identifying the resource. It also distinguishes itself from simple queries by likening it to MongoDB aggregation.
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 MongoDB comparison implies use for complex aggregation scenarios, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like query-objects or distinct. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create multiple objects in a single batch operation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objects | Yes | Array of objects to create | |
| className | Yes | The name of the class |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions mutation ('Create') but provides no details on atomicity, partial failures, permissions, or response behavior for a batch operation. Significant behavioral gaps remain.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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?
Batch creation typically involves important context like limits, partial failure behavior, and return values, none of which are addressed. Without annotations or an output schema, the description is too sparse to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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?
Both parameters (className and objects) are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond schema. The baseline of 3 applies because it does not need to compensate for missing schema info.
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 ('Create'), the resource ('objects'), and the batch context ('multiple objects in a single batch operation'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'create-object' by emphasizing batch semantics.
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 implies use for creating multiple objects, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'create-object' or mention any batch size limits. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, so it is only minimally viable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete multiple objects in a single batch operation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| className | Yes | The name of the class | |
| objectIds | Yes | Array of object IDs to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'delete', with no mention of irreversibility, permissions, partial failure behavior, rate limits, or return value. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.
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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words or fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
The tool has a simple schema with two required parameters, and the description covers the basic purpose. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the batch operation returns (e.g., count, success/failure) or how partial failures are handled, leaving some ambiguity for a batch mutation.
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%, as both parameters (className and objectIds) are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics or context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), a resource ('multiple objects'), and the batch nature, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete-object or delete-file. It is clear and unambiguous.
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 phrase 'batch operation' implies use when deleting multiple objects at once, but it does not explicitly contrast with delete-object or mention when not to use it. No alternatives are named, so the guidance is merely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new Parse class with optional field definitions
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Field definitions. Each field should have 'type' and optionally 'targetClass' for pointers/relations | |
| className | Yes | The name of the new class |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, such as whether class creation is idempotent, what happens if the class already exists, or any permission requirements. This is a gap for a mutation tool.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no fluff or redundant repetition of the tool name or schema details.
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?
For a simple create operation with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks context about return values, error behavior, and how this tool relates to siblings like add-field or delete-class. The description is complete enough for basic use but leaves 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?
Both parameters (className and fields) have descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description's mention of 'optional field definitions' adds little beyond the schema's field description. It doesn't provide additional syntax or format details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the action ('Create'), the resource ('Parse class'), and the optional scope ('with optional field definitions'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create-object (creates objects, not classes) and delete-class (removes classes).
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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to create a new class) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. For instance, it doesn't mention that add-field can add fields later, or what happens when creating an existing class. There is no clear when/not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new object in a Parse class. The object will be saved to the database immediately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Key-value pairs of the object data to save | |
| className | Yes | The name of the Parse class (e.g., 'GameScore', 'Post', 'Comment') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It adds that the object is 'saved to the database immediately', which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it omits side effects such as validation, schema enforcement, return value (e.g., ObjectId), or error behavior. The description provides some transparency but leaves significant gaps.
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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds one relevant behavioral fact (immediate save). Every word contributes to understanding the tool.
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?
For a simple create operation with two well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential behavior. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the created object or ObjectId) or any failure modes, which an agent might need. Given the low complexity and good schema coverage, this is acceptable but not fully complete.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (className and data with descriptions). The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not explain the expected structure of 'data' beyond being key-value pairs, but the schema already captures that.
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 tool's action ('Create a new object in a Parse class') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update-object and delete-object by emphasizing 'new'. The verb 'create' and resource 'Parse class' are specific and unambiguous.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not state that update-object should be used for existing objects, nor does it mention prerequisites like class existence or authentication. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new role for role-based access control
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the role (e.g., 'Admin', 'Moderator') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic action of creating a role, omitting details about permissions, duplicate handling, response format, or side effects—common expectations for a mutation tool.
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 a single concise sentence with no waste. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, though it is slightly terse in behavioral detail.
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?
For a simple create tool with one fully documented parameter, the description is adequate but lacks critical context about return values, error conditions, or how the role integrates with the broader RBAC toolset. With no output schema or annotations, some additional detail would improve completeness.
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%, and the 'name' parameter is clearly described with an example. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'create' and identifies the resource 'role' within the context of role-based access control. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-role, query-roles, and create-object, leaving no ambiguity about its function.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-role or add-users-to-role. The context is only implied by the tool name and description, with no explicit exclusions or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete an entire Parse class (WARNING: This will delete all objects in the class!)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| className | Yes | The name of the class to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly warns that all objects in the class will be deleted, a critical destructive behavior. However, it does not mention whether the deletion is permanent or if special permissions are required.
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 one clear sentence with an essential warning. It is front-loaded with the action and every word contributes value, with no unnecessary detail.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the most important consequence (deletion of all objects). It could mention irreversibility or permissions, but overall it is adequately complete.
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 fully documents the single parameter 'className' with its description. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Delete an entire Parse class') and the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete-object and delete-field. The warning about deleting all objects further clarifies the scope.
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 implies this tool is for deleting a class and its objects, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like delete-object. No exclusions or alternative tools are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete a field from a Parse class (WARNING: This will delete all data in that field!)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| className | Yes | The name of the class | |
| fieldName | Yes | The name of the field to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly warns that the action will delete all data in that field, which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other potential side effects or permission requirements.
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 a single sentence with a prominent warning; it is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary details.
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?
For a simple delete action, the description covers the core purpose and the most important consequence (data loss). The schema covers all parameters, so no further parameter explanation is needed.
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 already provides descriptions for both className and fieldName, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information.
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 uses a specific verb 'Delete' and identifies the resource as 'a field from a Parse class', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete-class or delete-object.
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 such as add-field or update-object. It lacks any context about prerequisites or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete a file from Parse storage
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The filename to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it deletes a file, but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, requires authentication, or what side effects occur. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core action and resource.
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?
For a simple one-parameter delete operation, the description is minimal but clear. However, it lacks safety and permission context, and there is no output schema, so completeness is moderate rather than high.
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 provides full documentation for the only parameter, 'name', with a description 'The filename to delete'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra semantic value, meriting a baseline score of 3.
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 'Delete a file from Parse storage', using a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('a file') with a location. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete-object and delete-user.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or suggest delete-object for deleting objects, leaving the agent to 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.
Delete an object from a Parse class by its ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objectId | Yes | The unique ID of the object to delete | |
| className | Yes | The name of the Parse class |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention the permanence of deletion, potential cascading effects, required permissions, or error behavior—critical omissions for a destructive action.
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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. No wasted words.
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?
For a simple two-parameter delete operation, the description is minimal but not wholly inadequate. It lacks any mention of return values or side effects, but the simplicity of the tool lowers the bar compared to more complex operations.
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 coverage is 100% with each parameter already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 a specific action ('Delete') and a specific resource ('an object from a Parse class') with the method ('by its ID'). It successfully distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete-file and delete-user by specifying 'Parse class'.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-object, update-object, or query-objects. The description only states what it does, leaving usage context entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete a user account
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | The user's objectId to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'delete', implying permanent removal. It does not mention irreversibility, cascading effects on user-associated data, authentication requirements, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, given the destructive nature of the tool, it is arguably under-specified, omitting critical details that could be included without excessive length.
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?
For a delete operation with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain side effects, reversibility, or security context. Sibling tools indicate broader API complexity, and this description lacks the completeness expected for a destructive user-management operation.
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 covers 100% of parameters, with a description for userId. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema already explains the parameter adequately.
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 'Delete a user account' uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a clear resource ('user account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete-object and delete-file. It is succinct and unambiguous, leaving no doubt about the tool's purpose.
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, such as when to use update-user to deactivate a user instead, or prerequisites like authentication. It does not mention exclusions or special cases, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get distinct values for a field in a Parse class
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| field | Yes | The field to get distinct values for | |
| where | No | Optional filter conditions | |
| className | Yes | The name of the class |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states the base operation and does not disclose return format, behavior with the 'where' filter, or edge cases like empty results or invalid fields.
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 a single, focused sentence with no wasteful words. It is optimally concise.
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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, and the presence of a nested 'where' parameter, the description is too sparse to fully inform the agent about return values or filtering semantics. It covers the basic purpose but lacks important contextual details.
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 schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already supplies.
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 uses a specific verb+resource construction ('Get distinct values for a field in a Parse class'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like query-objects or aggregate. It precisely conveys the intended operation with no ambiguity.
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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to choose distinct over aggregate or query-objects, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all class schemas in the Parse application
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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. However, it only states the operation ('get all class schemas') without disclosing any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, response format, pagination, or authentication requirements. The description lacks depth for a tool with zero annotations.
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 a single, concise sentence of nine words that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no wasted or redundant information.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description sufficiently conveys the core purpose. It could benefit from noting the return structure or any limitations, but the simplicity of the tool makes the description largely complete. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap here.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4 since there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.
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 tool's function with the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all class schemas', which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get-schema' that likely targets a single schema. The scope ('all') is explicit and unambiguous.
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 implies usage when the user needs all class schemas, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives like 'get-schema' for individual schemas. The guidance is minimal and relies on the word 'all' to convey context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get Parse Config parameters for remote app configuration
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool gets config parameters, but does not disclose whether authentication is required, what the return format is, whether it is read-only, or any side effects.
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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It states exactly what the tool does in a concise manner, appropriate for a simple zero-parameter getter.
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?
The tool is simple, but the description lacks details about what config parameters are returned or what 'remote app configuration' entails. Since there is no output schema, the description could have explained the return value more explicitly; however, for a basic getter, it is minimally adequate.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and the baseline score for a zero-parameter tool is 4. No additional parameter semantics are necessary.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'Parse Config parameters' and context 'remote app configuration'. It clearly indicates a read operation and is naturally distinguished from the sibling tool set-config by direction (get vs set).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. Although the sibling tool set-config exists as the write counterpart, no mention or exclusion is made, leaving usage entirely implied by the verb 'Get'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the currently authenticated user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'currently authenticated' hints at dependency on authentication state, but it does not specify what happens when no user is logged in, whether the operation is read-only, or what the return value looks like. This is a minimal, nearly tautological description that adds little beyond the tool name.
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 a single, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple zero-parameter operation, with no wasted words or redundant information.
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 the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is a minimal viable statement. However, it lacks details about return value (e.g., full user object or just ID) and behavior when unauthenticated, which an agent might need for correct invocation. The absence of these details makes it only partially complete for a real-world usage 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics, and no additional parameter explanation is needed. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not introduce any unnecessary parameter details.
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 uses a specific verb 'get' and identifies a clear resource: 'the currently authenticated user.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-object or query-users, which target other resources or require parameters. It unambiguously states what the tool does.
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, such as query-users or get-object for retrieving specific users. There is no mention of prerequisites like being logged in, nor any exclusions. The context signals show a large sibling list, but the description offers no comparative advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieve a single object by its ID from a Parse class
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | Array of pointer fields to include (populate) | |
| objectId | Yes | The unique ID of the object to retrieve | |
| className | Yes | The name of the Parse class |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention return behavior (e.g., what happens if the object is not found), side effects, or permission requirements. The phrase 'by its ID' merely repeats parameter information already in the schema, adding no extra behavioral context.
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 a single, concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose. It contains no redundant words, filler, or unnecessary details, making it exceptionally efficient.
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?
The description is minimally viable for a simple single-object retrieval, but it lacks contextual completeness. It does not mention return format, error conditions, or how it relates to query-objects for list retrieval. The absence of an output schema and annotations increases the need for additional context that is not provided.
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 input schema already documents all three parameters (include, objectId, className) with descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 specifies a clear verb and resource: 'Retrieve a single object by its ID from a Parse class.' It uniquely distinguishes from sibling tools like query-objects (which fetches lists) and get-current-user (which targets the current user). The phrasing directly states the scope and operation.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention 'Use this when you have an objectId' or exclude cases where query-objects would be more appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a role
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the role |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation but does not disclose whether it is safe, what happens if the role is not found, any required permissions, or the return format. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.
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 one short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for the simple purpose it states, though it could be more informative without being 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what 'information' is returned and what errors may occur. It does neither, leaving significant gaps for a tool that fetches role details.
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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'name' parameter with a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already gives, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 ('Get') and the resource ('a role'), but it lacks specificity about the scope of information and does not differentiate from sibling tools like query-roles or get-object. It's a clear, basic purpose statement without distinguishing details.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where get-role is preferred over query-roles or other role-related tools, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the schema definition for a Parse class
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| className | Yes | The name of the class |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read operation, but does not mention error behavior for nonexistent classes, authentication requirements, or the exact structure of the returned schema. This is the minimum viable transparency for a simple getter.
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 a single concise sentence that fully states the tool's purpose with no redundant words or filler.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description could be more complete by mentioning that it returns a specific class's schema definition and how that relates to get-all-schemas. As is, it provides the essential information but lacks contextual details.
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 for the single parameter 'className', described as 'The name of the class'. The tool description adds no additional semantic depth beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 'Get the schema definition for a Parse class' clearly states a specific verb (Get) and resource (schema definition for a Parse class), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool get-all-schemas that retrieves all schemas.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-all-schemas, create-class, or add-field. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Authenticate a user with username and password
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| password | Yes | The password | |
| username | Yes | The username |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not mention success/failure behavior, session/token creation, or security implications—key aspects for an authentication tool.
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 a single, direct sentence with no redundant details, fully front-loaded with the action and key subjects. Every word adds value.
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?
The tool is simple and parameters are fully documented, but the absence of annotations or an output schema leaves a gap in expected behavior (e.g., what a successful authentication returns, error conditions). It is minimally viable but lacks depth for an agent to fully predict outcomes.
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 already describes both username and password with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating the parameters, so it meets the baseline for covered schemas.
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?
Description clearly states the action 'Authenticate' with the resource 'user' and the credentials involved. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like logout-user and signup-user, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives, but the verb 'Authenticate' implies the context of logging in. It does not mention exclusions or contrast with session-related tools like get-current-user or logout-user, leaving usage implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Log out the currently authenticated user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It clearly states the core behavior: logging out the current user. It adds nuance with 'currently authenticated', implying that it operates on an existing session. However, it does not disclose edge cases (e.g., what happens if no user is logged in) or whether tokens are invalidated, though these are not critical for such a simple operation.
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 a single sentence of five words: 'Log out the currently authenticated user.' It is front-loaded, clear, and contains no superfluous information. Every word earns its place.
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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fully sufficient. It clearly communicates the action and the target, leaving no meaningful gaps for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params gets a baseline of 4 because there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed.
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 ('log out') and the resource ('the currently authenticated user'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like login-user, get-current-user, and delete-user, which have different actions.
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 usage is implied by the action and resource: use this to end the current user's session. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, no mention of prerequisites like being authenticated, and no exclusions. This is minimal implied guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Query objects near a geographic point
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| field | Yes | The GeoPoint field name | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of results | |
| latitude | Yes | Latitude of the point | |
| className | Yes | The name of the class | |
| longitude | Yes | Longitude of the point | |
| maxDistanceKm | No | Maximum distance in kilometers |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic query operation. It omits details about distance units, result ordering, optional parameters, and any potential side effects.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words, fully front-loaded.
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?
The description is too sparse for a tool with six parameters, including required coordinates and optional distance/limit. Without an output schema, return behavior is unstated, leaving significant 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 schema provides complete descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline score of 3 applies since no extra value is added.
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 tool queries objects near a geographic point, using a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like query-within-box (bounding box) and query-objects (generic query).
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 such as query-within-box or query-objects, nor any prerequisites like requiring a GeoPoint field.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Query objects from a Parse class with filters, sorting, and pagination. Supports MongoDB-style query operators.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Number of results to skip for pagination | |
| count | No | Include total count of matching objects | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return (default: 100) | |
| order | No | Field to sort by. Prefix with '-' for descending order (e.g., '-createdAt') | |
| where | No | Query filters using MongoDB-style operators ($eq, $ne, $lt, $lte, $gt, $gte, $in, $nin, $exists, $regex, $contains, $startsWith, $endsWith) | |
| select | No | Array of fields to return (projection) | |
| include | No | Array of pointer fields to include (populate) | |
| className | Yes | The name of the Parse class to query |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of indicating safety. The verb 'Query' clearly implies a read-only operation, and mentioning 'MongoDB-style query operators' adds behavioral context. It does not explicitly state there are no side effects, but the read-only nature is strongly inferred.
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 one concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes high-level capabilities. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.
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?
The tool has 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description provides a high-level overview but lacks explicit usage guidelines (e.g., when to choose this over sibling query tools) and does not describe return values. The rich schema compensates partially, but the description alone is not fully complete for a complex query tool.
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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds minimal extra value beyond the schema, only referencing 'MongoDB-style query operators' which relates to the 'where' parameter. This is a slight bonus, but not a significant departure from the baseline.
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 states a clear verb ('Query'), a specific resource ('objects from a Parse class'), and key capabilities (filters, sorting, pagination). The name 'query-objects' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'query-users' and 'query-roles', which target specific classes.
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 clearly indicates this tool is for querying any Parse class, which provides context for use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it compared to similar sibling tools like 'query-users' or 'aggregate'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Query objects in a relation field
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objectId | Yes | The source object's ID | |
| className | Yes | The source class name | |
| relationField | Yes | The name of the relation field |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Query objects in a relation field' without mentioning read-only nature, return format, or potential side effects. Since 'query' usually implies read-only, the tool may be safe, but this is not explicitly confirmed.
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 a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's action and subject. It is appropriately sized with no filler words, earning maximum conciseness.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what the query returns (e.g., a list of related objects) or any limitations. For a tool with moderate complexity, this leaves a significant gap for the agent to infer behavior.
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%, as all three parameters have descriptions (objectId, className, relationField). The tool description does not add any per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('query') and resource ('objects in a relation field'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like query-objects and query-users by specifying relation fields.
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 implies usage when you need to retrieve objects linked via a relation field, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like query-objects or query-near. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all roles
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, pagination, or return format. For a list operation, some of this may be expected, but it is not disclosed.
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 a single concise sentence, 'List all roles', with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable.
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?
For a simple zero-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It omits details about the return structure or potential volume, but the simplicity of the tool reduces the impact of these 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 zero properties, and the description adds no parameter details. According to the rubric, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4 since there are no parameters to explain.
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 'List all roles' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (roles), making it immediately clear what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get-role' (singular) and 'create-role' (creation) by implying a plural listing operation.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get-role' or 'query-users'. The use case is implied by the name and verb, but there is no mention of when-not to use it or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Query user accounts with filters
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Number of results to skip | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of results | |
| order | No | Field to sort by | |
| where | No | Query filters |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action without detailing return format, auth requirements, pagination behavior, or side effects beyond the read-only implication of 'query'.
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 a single focused phrase with no filler words, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately size for the information it conveys.
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?
The description is minimal and does not mention return type or pagination, though the schema's parameter descriptions and the query nature partially cover these. Without annotations or output schema, it lacks behavioral and return-value context, leaving some gaps for a filtering tool.
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 schema provides 100% coverage of parameters with descriptions (skip, limit, order, where). The description adds no extra semantics beyond the generic 'with filters', so it does not exceed the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 uses the specific verb 'query' and identifies the resource as 'user accounts', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-current-user or query-objects. The scope is also clear: filtering user accounts.
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 usage guidance is provided; no alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned. The phrase 'with filters' implies a use case, but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, making guidance merely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Query objects within a geographic bounding box
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| field | Yes | The GeoPoint field name | |
| className | Yes | The name of the class | |
| neLatitude | Yes | Northeast corner latitude | |
| swLatitude | Yes | Southwest corner latitude | |
| neLongitude | Yes | Northeast corner longitude | |
| swLongitude | Yes | Southwest corner longitude |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without clarifying whether it is read-only, how results are returned (e.g., pagination), boundary point handling, or any access requirements. This is a significant gap for a query tool.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It directly states the tool's essence without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to scan and understand.
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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain return values, result structure, and potential behavioral nuances. It does none of this. While the tool itself is conceptually simple, the description is minimally viable but insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior, particularly around result format and edge cases.
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?
All six parameters are covered in the schema with descriptive names and brief descriptions, giving baseline credit. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity.
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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('objects') with a clear geographic scope ('within a geographic bounding box'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like query-near and query-objects by explicitly specifying the bounding box filtering mechanism.
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 clearly conveys the intended use case (geographic bounding box queries), allowing an agent to infer when to use this tool over alternatives. No explicit exclusions or alternative names are mentioned, but the context is sufficiently clear for a basic selection decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Remove objects from a relation field
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objectId | Yes | The source object's ID | |
| className | Yes | The source class name | |
| targetIds | Yes | Array of target object IDs to remove from the relation | |
| relationField | Yes | The name of the relation field | |
| targetClassName | Yes | The target class name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral details. It states the action but fails to disclose critical traits such as whether the action only removes relation references or also deletes target objects, whether it is reversible, or what happens if target IDs do not exist. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any extraneous words. It earns its place and is maximally concise.
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 the tool's complexity (five required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the operation's behavior, side effects, or return value. It needs more context regarding what 'remove' entails for the relation and target objects.
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 coverage is 100%, with all five parameters clearly described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Remove objects from a relation field' uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('relation field'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add-relation and query-relation. It accurately describes the tool's core action without ambiguity.
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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. Sibling names imply a counterpart to add-relation, but the description itself lacks explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Remove users from a role
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userIds | Yes | Array of user objectIds to remove | |
| roleName | Yes | The name of the role |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without covering impacts such as whether users lose all associated permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, or whether special authentication/authorization is required.
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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but could be enriched with minimal additional context without becoming verbose, hence not a perfect 5.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. However, the absence of any behavioral notes, output expectations, or error handling caveats leaves notable gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly in all contexts.
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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meriting the baseline score of 3.
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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and clearly identifies the resource ('users from a role'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'add-users-to-role' by indicating the opposite operation.
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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., role must exist) or situations where this tool is preferred over batch operations or other role-management tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Send a password reset email to a user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | The email address of the user |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary side effect (sending an email) but omits additional behavioral traits such as error conditions, whether the user must exist, rate limits, or security implications (e.g., account enumeration). This is minimal transparency at best.
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 a single sentence of eight words, directly front-loaded with the action and object. There is no filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers the core action. However, it lacks any mention of return values/response, error states, or side effects beyond sending the email, leaving some gaps for an agent that needs to handle failures or confirm success.
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% for the 'email' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'a user', which is already captured by the schema's 'The email address of the user'. It does not elaborate on formatting, verification, or behavior with invalid emails.
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: 'Send a password reset email to a user'. It uses a specific verb ('Send') and explicit resource ('password reset email'), distinctly differentiating it from sibling tools like signup-user, login-user, and update-user.
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 usage context is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus an alternative (e.g., for forgotten passwords) or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It is a bare statement of function with no guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Execute a Cloud Code function defined on the Parse Server
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No | Parameters to pass to the function | |
| functionName | Yes | The name of the Cloud Code function |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Execute' and reveals nothing about side effects, authentication requirements, return values, or whether the function might mutate data. This is a severe gap for a tool that runs arbitrary code.
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?
A single, concise sentence with the verb positioned first. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and there is no redundant content.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and no additional description, the tool lacks essential context such as expected return value, potential errors, or security considerations. The execution model of Cloud Code functions is opaque, so more context is needed.
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%: both 'functionName' and 'params' are described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Execute') and a clear resource ('Cloud Code function defined on the Parse Server'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the CRUD and user management siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.
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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description is purely functional and provides no decision-making context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Set Parse Config parameters (requires masterKey)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes | Key-value pairs to set in the config |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the masterKey authentication requirement and does not mention whether the operation overwrites the entire config, merges keys, has side effects, or what the return format is.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the core purpose and a key prerequisite, though it sacrifices behavioral detail.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. An agent cannot infer the operation's effects, return value, or when to prefer this tool over get-config, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.
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 schema provides full coverage of the single 'params' parameter, including its key-value nature and additionalProperties. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond restating that it sets config parameters.
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 'Set' and the resource 'Parse Config parameters', identifying it as a configuration write operation. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get-config because of the opposite verb, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-config or update-object. The only added context is the masterKey requirement, which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Set Access Control List (ACL) permissions on an object
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objectId | Yes | The object's ID | |
| className | Yes | The name of the class | |
| permissions | Yes | ACL permissions configuration |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Set', which implies mutation, but omits crucial details such as whether the ACL is completely replaced or merged, whether existing permissions are overwritten, and whether any special authorization is required to perform the operation.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a complex nested permissions parameter. The description is too minimal to be complete: it fails to mention whether the ACL replaces existing entries, how to remove permissions, or what the response/result will look like. The schema covers parameters but not the tool's operational behavior or side effects.
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: each parameter including the nested permissions structure has a description. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning, but the schema already clearly documents className, objectId, and the ACL permissions shape. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'Set' and identifies the exact resource being acted upon: 'Access Control List (ACL) permissions' on an object. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update-object or create-object, which operate on the object's general data rather than its ACL.
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, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. While it implies usage for setting object ACLs, it does not explain how this relates to update-object, role management tools, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Register a new user account. Username and password are required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Optional email address | ||
| password | Yes | The password for the new account | |
| username | Yes | The username for the new account | |
| additionalFields | No | Additional custom fields to set on the user |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action ('Register a new user account') without disclosing side effects, authentication requirements, whether it returns a token, or if the operation is idempotent. This is a significant gap for a signup tool.
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 a single 11-word sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and only adds essential information about required fields. It is concise with no wasted words.
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?
The description is minimal for a tool with 4 parameters, including an 'additionalFields' nested object whose purpose is not explained. With no annotations or output schema, the description fails to clarify the context of registration (e.g., what happens on success, whether email is optional, or how additionalFields behaves). It covers only the bare basics.
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 schema describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of required username/password merely repeats what the schema already indicates in the 'required' list, adding no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('user account'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like login-user, update-user, or create-object. It also states the required credentials, reinforcing the purpose.
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. With many user-related sibling tools (e.g., login-user, update-user, delete-user), it would be helpful to mention that this is for new account creation, not for existing users or other user operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update an existing object in a Parse class
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Key-value pairs of fields to update | |
| objectId | Yes | The unique ID of the object to update | |
| className | Yes | The name of the Parse class |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Update' without explaining merge semantics, error handling on non-existent objects, permission requirements, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap.
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 a single, focused sentence that directly states the purpose without unnecessary fluff. Every word earns its place, and it is easy to scan quickly.
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?
The tool has three required parameters and no output schema, yet the description offers no information about return values, failure modes, or whether updates are additive or replacing. It is too minimal to fully guide an agent, especially given the existence of many sibling tools.
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 for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, such as the flexible key-value nature of 'data'.
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 'Update an existing object in a Parse class' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like create-object and delete-object. It accurately conveys the tool's core function without ambiguity.
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 like update-user or batch-update. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts beyond the implied 'existing object'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update a user's information
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Fields to update | |
| userId | Yes | The user's objectId |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update a user's information' without revealing how the update works (e.g., merge vs. replace), required permissions, side effects, or validation behavior, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. While it is minimal, it does not waste words and is appropriately structured for a simple update operation.
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 the lack of annotations, no output schema, and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is too thin to be considered complete. It fails to address critical aspects such as the nature of the update (full vs. partial), authentication requirements, success/error behavior, or when to prefer this tool over 'update-object'.
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 provides descriptions for both parameters ('userId' and 'data'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing it.
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 'update' and the resource 'user's information', making the tool's primary function obvious. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'update-object', which could also update user objects, so it lacks sibling distinction.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-object' or other user-related mutation tools. The description provides no context about prerequisites, restrictions, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Upload a file to Parse. Provide base64-encoded content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Filename with extension (e.g., 'image.png') | |
| base64Data | Yes | Base64-encoded file content | |
| contentType | No | MIME type of the file (e.g., 'image/png') |
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. It usefully mentions that content must be base64-encoded, but it omits important behaviors such as authentication requirements, file size limits, whether the upload is permanent, and what the response contains.
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, consisting of two short sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or extraneous information.
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?
With no output schema and minimal description, the tool is incomplete for an agent. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., file URL), any prerequisites like authentication, or limitations such as size restrictions, leaving a significant gap in understanding the tool's full behavior.
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?
All three parameters have individual descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description's phrase 'Provide base64-encoded content' reiterates the base64Data parameter but does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema, thus meeting the baseline.
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 'Upload' and the resource 'a file to Parse', making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like delete-file and object operations, which handle different actions.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It only states the action and the base64 requirement, leaving the agent to infer the context purely from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.0add-fieldadd-relationadd-users-to-roleaggregatebatch-createbatch-deletecreate-classcreate-objectcreate-roledelete-classdelete-fielddelete-filedelete-objectdelete-userdistinctget-all-schemasget-configget-current-userget-objectget-roleget-schemalogin-userlogout-userquery-nearquery-objectsquery-relationquery-rolesquery-usersquery-within-boxremove-relationremove-users-from-rolerequest-password-resetrun-cloud-functionset-configset-object-aclsignup-userupdate-objectupdate-userupload-fileEach tool targets a distinct resource type and action, with clear separation between object, user, role, schema, file, config, relation, batch, and geo operations. Even similar tools like query-near and query-within-box are clearly differentiated by their spatial semantics.
All tool names consistently follow a verb-noun pattern using lowercase and hyphens (e.g., create-object, get-schema, add-users-to-role). Multi-word actions maintain a uniform structure, making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
At 39 tools, the server offers an extensive surface that exceeds the recommended range for typical MCP servers. While each tool is purposeful, the sheer number makes the toolkit feel heavy and may increase the cognitive load for agents.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of Parse Server capabilities, including full CRUD for objects and users, file management, role-based access control, schema operations, configuration, aggregation, relations, and geo queries. There are no significant gaps that would prevent completing core workflows.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Model Context Protocol server for the Apideck Unified API. Connect any MCP-compatible agent framework to 100+ accounting systems, HRIS platforms, file storage providers, and more through one integration. More information https://www.apideck.com/mcp-server
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
Enable secure connectivity between Sentry issues and debugging data, and LLM clients, using a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/asaje379/parse-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
