AgentDevX
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.1.2
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly distinct, especially within the petstore API where each operation targets a different resource. However, the three 'jsonplaceholder' tools (getPosts, getPost, getUsers) are distinct but could be slightly ambiguous in naming, and the 'echo-server' and 'memory' tools are very clear. The 'petstore-api.createUser' and 'petstore-api.createUsersWithListInput' have overlapping purposes (creating users) but are distinct in input handling, which is acceptable.
Naming Consistency3/5The naming patterns are largely consistent within each sub-API: most use verb_noun (e.g., getPost, createPost, deleteUser, addPet, updatePet). However, there is a mix of conventions across the server: 'jsonplaceholder.getPosts' uses snake_case for the resource and camelCase for verbs, while 'petstore-api.findPetsByTags' uses a different style. Also, 'echo-server.echo' and 'echo-server.add' are not verb_noun but simple verbs. The overall pattern is readable but inconsistent, earning a 3.
Tool Count2/5With 38 tools, the server is heavy and mixes multiple unrelated domains (petstore, public holidays, JSONPlaceholder, exchange rates, GitHub, weather, echo, mailer, memory, webscrape). This large count feels bloated and unwieldy for a single server, as it aggregates many separate APIs that would be better split into dedicated servers. While each sub-domain has a reasonable number, the aggregate count is excessive and reduces coherence.
Completeness3/5The petstore API is the most complete, covering CRUD for pets, users, orders, and login/logout. Other domains are incomplete: e.g., 'github-api' lacks create/update/delete for repositories and issues, only providing read/search operations. 'jsonplaceholder' provides get and create but no update/delete. The presence of a 'memory' and 'webscrape' tools hints at additional capabilities, but some domains like exchange-rate only have one method. This mixed coverage results in moderate completeness.
Average 3.4/5 across 37 of 38 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
Tools from this server were used 8 times in the last 30 days.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
This server has been verified by its author.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral information beyond what the annotations already declare. It does not clarify whether the update is a full replacement or partial patch, what data may be overwritten, or what side effects or errors might occur, so the description itself contributes little transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise. Because the wording largely repeats the tool name, the sentence does not earn much additional value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with an empty input schema, the description leaves critical operational context missing: the agent is not told how to identify the target user, what an update entails, or whether the update is partial or full. Having an output schema does not compensate for the lack of invocation guidance and update semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters in the input schema, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the rubric, 0 parameters receives a baseline of 4, and no schema-documented parameters are left unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is essentially a verbatim restatement of the tool name: 'updateUser' becomes 'Update user resource.' It states the general action and target but adds no specificity about which user, by what identifier, or what aspects are updatable, so it falls into the tautology category.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided. The description does not say when to use updateUser versus createUser, deleteUser, updatePet, or the duplicate swagger-petstore updateUser, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the user already existing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations. The annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only, but the description does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., overwriting, authentication) or context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, efficiently conveying the core action without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too sparse to be complete. It lacks information about expected output, purpose in the petstore context, or any constraints. Given the minimal input/output schema, the description does not fill the gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters are defined in the schema, and the description does not mention any required inputs (e.g., file, petId). With zero schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for missing parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Uploads an image,' which is a specific verb and object. It distinguishes from reading or listing operations, though it does not specify the target entity (e.g., which pet) beyond implying an image upload.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does 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 any prerequisites, use cases, or situations where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds no behavior beyond that. It doesn't mention response format, pagination, or any constraints. The description is minimal and adds little.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—five words—with no filler. It is clear and front-loaded, achieving maximum brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too terse for a tool that appears to filter by a parameter that is not present in the schema. The mention of 'status' without a corresponding parameter leaves significant ambiguity, and there is no information about expected input or output beyond what a generic find operation might do.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters, yet the description mentions 'by status'. This implies a status filter that isn't defined, creating an inconsistency. No semantic guidance is provided for parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Finds Pets by status' clearly states the action (find) and resource (pets) with a specific filter (status). However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like findPetsByTags beyond the filter criterion, and the lack of a status parameter in the schema makes the statement ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does 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 like findPetsByTags or getPetById. The description provides no context for selection or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no context about how the city is determined, whether a default city is used, or why the schema accepts no parameters despite saying 'for a city'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the basic purpose statement, even though additional clarification is needed elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has good annotations plus an output schema, but the description's central omission—how 'a city' is selected when no parameter exists—makes it incomplete for reliable invocation. It also offers no comparison with the closely related getForecast tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, but the description's phrase 'for a city' implies an input that the schema does not support. It does not clarify that the city must be preconfigured or otherwise resolved by the server, creating real invocation ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the resource and action: 'Get current weather for a city'. It distinguishes from the sibling getForecast via the word 'current', but it leaves ambiguous how the city is supplied given that the input schema has zero parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus open-weather.getForecast or any other sibling. The description gives no decision criteria, exclusions, or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, signaling a mutating operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of authentication requirements, side effects, or what the destructive hint implies. It does not contradict the annotations but also doesn't enrich them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely concise, the two-word description is under-specified, similar to the 'Process' example. It front-loads the verb but leaves out any scope, examples, or links to related details that would help an agent use it effectively. Conciseness should not come at the expense of necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich set of sibling tools, the description is incomplete because it fails to distinguish itself from createUsersWithListInput or swagger-petstore createUser. An agent cannot tell if this handles multiple users, what data format is expected, or any rate limits—though some of these may be irrelevant with no parameters, the lack of differentiation hurts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is 100% covered (vacuously). The description adds no parameter details, but with no parameters, the baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing for the description to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the clear verb-resource pair 'Create user,' which unambiguously states the operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like petstore-api.createUsersWithListInput or swagger-petstore---openapi-3.0.createUser, so it misses the opportunity to clarify single vs. batch creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided. The description gives no indication of when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., use this for a single user vs. createUsersWithListInput for bulk creation). No exclusions or alternative tool references exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true flagged as a non-read-only, destructive operation Humans expect that sending an email has side effects that cannot be undoneanged, but the description adds nothing beyond that. Since the destructive hint is already provided, the description's lack of extra behavioral detail (e.g., whether the email is actually delivered immediately, retry behavior, or rate limits) and no contradiction means a score of 2 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded and to the point, but it could potentially include minimal additional context without losing conciseness. However, for the simplicity of the tool, this length is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one parameter, high schema coverage, and an output schema, which reduces the burden on the description. However, the description does not mention any side effects (beyond the destructive annotation), limitations, or when to use it. For such a simple tool, it is minimally adequate but lacks richer context that could help an agent decide when to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'to' with description 'Recipient email address'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies as the description provides no extra clarification.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (send an email) and the target (to a recipient). It uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish from siblings because there are no sibling email tools, so it doesn't fully meet the highest bar of distinguishing from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 simply states the action without any context about scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions. There is no mention of when not to use it, so the tool gives no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'Add a new pet' which is a creation operation, but annotations declare destructiveHint=true, creating a direct contradiction. No additional behavioral context is provided about side effects, permissions, response behavior, or failure modes, so the description fails to disclose its true behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word earns its place; it is appropriately concise for a simple one-line tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description omits usage guidance and fails to resolve the conflict with destructiveHint. An agent cannot reliably determine when to invoke this tool or what side effects to expect, making the overall context incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter information is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a new pet to the store'), making the operation clear and distinguishing it from siblings like updatePet and deletePet. It loses one point because it does not differentiate itself from the near-duplicate swagger-petstore addPet tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'New pet' weakly implies it is not for updates or deletes, but there is no explicit when/when-not or mention of alternative tools, prerequisites, or error cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description merely confirms it creates users. It adds no new behavioral context such as side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The description carries minimal extra value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and directly states the action, demonstrating excellent conciseness and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a destructive bulk operation. It lacks clarity on what the 'input array' contains and what side effects occur. The empty input schema further hampers correct invocation, making the description insufficient for an agent to use it safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero properties, so schema_description_coverage is effectively 100%, which yields a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'input array' but does not specify the array's structure or expected user properties. It adds some semantic hint but fails to fully compensate for the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Creates list of users') and the resource ('list of users'), which distinguishes it from the sibling createUser tool that creates a single user. However, it omits details about the expected input format, which is a minor gap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 createUser or updateUser. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds no new context. It does not explain irreversibility, authorization requirements, or side effects on related data, leaving the behavioral profile sparse beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and resource. No wasted words, perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete tool with no parameters, the description fails to clarify which user is deleted or what the output schema represents. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged, and the ambiguity around the target user is a significant gap in functional completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. The description correctly does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. However, it could have noted how the target user is determined (e.g., via auth context), but this is not strictly a parameter semantics issue.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation ('Delete') and the resource ('user'), differentiating it from sibling tools like deletePet and deleteOrder. However, it lacks specificity about which user is targeted, especially since the input schema is empty.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does 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. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and there are near-duplicate sibling tools (e.g., swagger-petstore---openapi-3.0.deleteUser) with no distinguishing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotations, and critically, it fails to clarify how the 'user name' is provided given that the input schema is empty. This omission is a transparency gap that could cause invocation errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, a single sentence with no fluff. It is structured logically (verb + object + scope). It earns a high conciseness score, though it could be enhanced with a covering sentence about input requirements without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the empty input schema, the description is the sole source for inferring that a username is needed, but it doesn't state that this is a required parameter or how it should be supplied (e.g., as a path parameter). The tool name implies the input, but the description doesn't confirm or elaborate. With an output schema present, return values are covered, but the input side remains incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since the schema has zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds the hint that the tool operates 'by user name', implying an input even though the schema lacks it. This is helpful but not fully explicit about parameter names or formats, so it doesn't exceed the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('user') with the scope 'by user name'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like updateUser and deleteUser, though it doesn't differentiate from the almost identical swagger-petstore--openapi-3.0.getUserByName. Overall, the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 getPetById or loginUser. It doesn't mention that it is a read-only lookup or that it requires authentication. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendation, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name—no mention of response format, pagination, rate limits, or any operational nuance. Since it adds zero value beyond what annotations provide, it scores low.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words—it is concise and to the point. However, it is so minimal that it forgoes additional useful context (like when to use it or what it returns), which would make it more helpful while still being concise. It earns its place as a purpose statement but lacks depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no input parameters and an output schema exists (not shown), the description is not required to explain return values. However, it fails to provide any context about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like github-api.getRepo. The annotations cover safety, but the usage context is entirely missing, so it is not fully complete for an agent's decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, but since there are none, there is nothing to clarify. The baseline is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (search) and resource (GitHub repositories), which is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like getRepo (specific repo fetch) and listRepoIssues (issue listing). However, it lacks scoping details such as what search parameters or filters are applied, making it slightly less specific than the top-tier example.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 that github-api.getRepo fetches a single repository by name, or listRepoIssues handles issues, nor does it suggest when searchRepos is preferred. No usage context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent write operation)Skip, but the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., side effects, required authentication, or response details). It merely restates the action without enriching the agent's understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no fluffhol, but it is overly minimal. Conciseness is good, but structure provides no additional value beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no required parameters annotated (though schema lists them optional) and no description of return value or side effects. Given the simplicity, more context could be provided, such as typical usage or relationship to other endpoints. The description is too sparse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes each parameter (title, body, userId). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new post' is concise and clearly states the action (create) and resource (post), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like getPosts or getPost. The purpose is immediately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 prefer update or delete operations, or prerequisites like existing user IDs. No contextual or exclusionary information is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) cover key behavioral traits. The description adds no extra context beyond the basic function, which is acceptable given the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and directly conveys the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters, the description is sufficient to understand the basic function. It does not elaborate on the output format, but the presence of an output schema partially compensates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing to describe. However, the description's phrase 'by status' may imply a filtering capability that is not reflected in the schema, potentially misleading users.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (returns) and resource (pet inventories) with a qualifier (by status). It is distinct from other tools like getPetById, but could be more specific about what 'status' means.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 instead of alternatives. It does not mention other inventory-related tools or scenarios where this is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral detail, such as return behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits, so it fails to add value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. It is immediately understandable and economical.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, and annotations plus output schema cover safety and return structure. However, the description lacks additional context such as tag format, matching logic, or disambiguation from sibling tools, making it minimally sufficient but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters and schema coverage at 100%, the baseline is 4. The description's mention of 'by tags' hints at filtering, but there are no parameters to clarify or compensate for, so the baseline is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it 'Finds Pets by tags,' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like findPetsByStatus or getPetById, so it misses the top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites. The description is purely declarative and offers no contextual advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the core behavior (returns input) but does not clarify the destructiveHint annotation (true) nor explain any side effects like logging or state changes. Annotations are present, lowering the burden, but the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the basic echo behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects), and the output schema exists, but the destructiveHint annotation (true) remains unexplained, which could create confusion. The description is minimal but does not fully address behavioral nuances or error conditions, leaving some ambiguity for a trivial tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the only parameter 'text' with a clear description ('Text to echo'). The description 'Returns whatever you send' implies the parameter is the echoed content but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Returns whatever you send' clearly states the tool's function: it echoes the input. The verb 'returns' and the resource 'whatever you send' make the purpose explicit, and the name 'echo-server.echo' reinforces this. There is no sibling tool with a similar purpose, so differentiation is not needed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 typical use cases (e.g., testing, debugging) or any exclusions. Since the tool is trivial, this could be acceptable, but it is still a gap in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotations—e.g., it doesn't mention that rates are based on a default base currency or that it returns a snapshot. However, with annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate because no contradiction and minimal added value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. It could be slightly more informative, such as mentioning what the default base currency is, but it is appropriately brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has zero parameters and a simple output schema (likely a currency map), and annotations cover safety. The description is adequate but lacks details such as the default base currency or whether the rates are relative to a specific base (e.g., USD). Since it's a simple read tool, a concise description is sufficient, but missing the default base could mislead the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters in the schema, and the description mentions 'base currency,' implying that the tool might have a default base currency or that the base currency is fixed. Since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The mention of 'base currency' provides some context, and given no parameters, a high score is justified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves latest exchange rates for a base currency, with a specific verb and resource. It does not differentiate from other exchange-rate tools (e.g., might be a sibling with historical rates), but no such sibling exists in the provided list; among the listed siblings, it is unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, and does not mention any context such as the need for a base currency specification or typical use cases. Since there are no sibling tools for exchange rates, the lack of alternatives is less critical, but no usage context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: false and destructiveHint: true. The description only adds 'form data' as a minor behavioral detail but does not explain what gets changed, whether existing data is replaced, or what other effects occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise, front-loaded sentence with no redundant filler. It is not overly verbose, though it omits useful operational details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for executing this operation: it does not say how to identify the pet, which form fields exist, or what will happen to the pet. The empty input schema makes this ambiguity worse, and the description does not fill the gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% empty coverage, so the baseline is high. 'Form data' implies hidden fields, but with no formal parameters, the description does not need to compensate for a parameter list.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb 'Updates' and states a clear resource ('a pet in the store') plus a specific method ('with form data'). It distinguishes this tool from updatePet by emphasizing form-data submission.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The single sentence provides no guidance about when to choose this tool versus updatePet, addPet, or deletePet. It names the action but gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which describe the mutation. However, the description adds nothing beyond this—it does not clarify that the pet is identified by an ID, nor does it disclose potential failure modes (e.g., 404 if not found) or side effects. The empty input schema worsens the gap, as the agent is left unaware of how to specify which pet to delete. The description fails to add value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, 'Deletes a pet.' It is front-loaded and contains zero wasted words. This is appropriately concise for a simple, atomic action. No structural issues.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity, the description is still incomplete. It fails to explain how the pet is identified (no parameters in schema, no mention of an ID), what happens on success or failure, and how it differs from other delete operations. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing identifier guidance. The tool is too vague to be used confidently without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters; however, it could have implied that the target pet is identified via some external context (e.g., path variable), but since none is given, the score remains at baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Deletes a pet.' This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling operations that add, update, get, or find pets. It is unambiguous and immediately conveys the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 deleteOrder or deleteUser. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the pet must exist), nor any clarification that this is for deleting a specific pet identified by ID. The context is implied by the name but not explicitly described, leaving room for confusion among the many sibling deletion tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, but it is consistent with the annotation and indicates a single-resource lookup rather than a list or mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief for such a simple lookup operation, though the brevity also contributes to missing usage and invocation context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The annotations and output schema cover the safety profile and return shape, but the empty input schema means the description must compensate for the missing pet ID parameter and does not fully do so. It is enough for basic selection but not strong enough for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero declared parameters, so the phrase 'by ID' carries the only parameter-like meaning. It tells the agent the conceptual key is a pet ID, but it does not explain how to supply it, what type it should be, or whether it is required, leaving a meaningful ambiguity in the tool definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb (find), a clear resource (pet), and the lookup criterion (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like findPetsByStatus, findPetsByTags, and mutation tools, though it stops short of explaining any additional scope or response characteristics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by ID' implies the tool should be used when an agent already has a pet ID and needs the matching pet. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as finding by status or tags, nor does it describe when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the annotations already cover safety, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not explain that login likely issues a session token, that it may require username/password (which are absent from the schema), or that it could have side effects like rate limiting. The description is too sparse to help an agent understand the operational implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the core function, achieving maximum efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple and has an output schema (not shown) and annotations, the description omits crucial usage context. It does not explain that login typically requires credentials (which are missing from the schema), that it might invalidate previous sessions, or that it should be paired with logoutUser. For a state-changing authentication operation, more detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies. The description does not mention parameters, but none are needed; it does not detract from the score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Logs user into the system' is a clear, specific verb+resource statement that unambiguously identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'logoutUser' by stating the opposite action, providing mutual differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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., needing to create a user first), the typical flow (login before other authenticated operations), or the need to pair with logoutUser. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations declare destructiveHint=true, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention side effects like inventory changes or order creation implications. It merely states the action without disclosing consequences, so it provides no value over the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse for a tool that presumably creates an order. It does not explain what an order entails, any required context, or the nature of the response. This leaves significant gaps for the agent, especially given that the tool takes no parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description has nothing to clarify. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is given for 0 params, and the description does not need to add parameter details. The absence of parameters is consistent with the text, which does not mention any inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Place an order for a pet' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from other petstore operations like getPetById or deleteOrder. It states exactly what the tool does without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., needing a pet ID or authentication). There is no mention of scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selecting it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the annotations: destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false align with 'update.' However, it adds no additional context beyond what the annotations already declare, such as what an update entails, potential side effects, or error conditions. With annotations present, the bar is met but not exceeded.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured, front-loaded, and appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally viable but lacks critical context for distinguishing from similar siblings. The existence of 'updatePetWithForm' in the sibling list makes the description incomplete without mentioning when to use this endpoint versus the form-based variant. The output schema provides return-type clarity, so that is not a concern.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, so there are no parameter details to describe. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information, as there are none to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an existing pet.' clearly specifies the verb and resource: it updates a pet, and 'existing' indicates modification of a current resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'petstore-api.updatePetWithForm', which likely performs a similar update via form data. The name and description are nearly identical in scope, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'petstore-api.updatePetWithForm' or the swagger-petstore variants. No preconditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names are mentioned. Given multiple siblings with overlapping functionality, some explicit usage guidance is necessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description merely reinforces 'Get' without adding behavioral context. Nothing is said about 404 handling, error responses, or why the schema lacks an ID parameter despite 'by ID' in the description. Since the description carries the full burden beyond annotations and delivers almost nothing, the score is low, though no contradiction rises to the level of an annotation contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Five words with no wasted content. Every word earns its place, and the sentence is front-loaded with the most important verb. This is short, focused, and appropriate for such a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with zero parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema that documents return values, there is minimal additional context needed. The only gap is the description's 'by ID' claim vs. the empty schema, which is a minor completeness miss but still material given the simplicity. Overall, complete enough for an agent to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Per the baseline for tools with 0 parameters and a matching output schema, score is 4. The description's 'by ID' hints at the intended parameter semantics even though the schema exposes nothing. In fact, the description implies information the schema omits, which is a minor point in its favor for adding meaning, though it would be better if the schema actually exposed the ID parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Get a single post') that clearly distinguishes this from the sibling getPosts (plural) and createPost tools. The 'by ID' qualifier indicates scope. However, the empty input schema means no ID can actually be passed, making the 'by ID' claim unfulfillable—a real but minor detraction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied through the word 'single' and the contrast with sibling tools like jsonplaceholder.getPosts, suggesting this fetches one post rather than all. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, and the ID-based access pattern is never explained despite no parameter being available to supply the ID. Adequate for a simple getter but lacking explicit differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the destructive nature is disclosed. The description adds 'by identifier' but does not elaborate on irreversibility, required permissions, or the fact that no input schema parameters are declared. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary verbiage. It is instantly parsable and contains exactly the core information (action + resource + qualifier).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists (so return format is covered), the tool's input contract is unclear because the schema is empty and the description does not explain how to supply the identifier. Annotations help with safety but not with calling conventions. Complete enough for a trivial delete but lacking required invocation details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty, yet the description mentions 'by identifier', implying an input that is not formally declared. This creates ambiguity about how to pass the identifier. The description adds some meaning beyond the schema but fails to specify the parameter name, location, or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Delete' and identifies the resource as 'purchase order' with a 'by identifier' qualifier. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getOrderById (retrieves) and deletePet (different resource).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, such as prerequisites (e.g., order must exist) or alternatives (e.g., use getOrderById to verify before deletion). It simply states the action without any context for selection among many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as output characteristics, ordering, or data source, but it does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, read-only, zero-parameter tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is nearly complete. A minor improvement would be clarifying that the list is specific to public-holiday coverage, but the namespace and sibling tools make this reasonably clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the input surface. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Get list of available countries.' It is specific enough to differentiate from the sibling getPublicHolidays, though it does not explicitly mention that these countries are for public-holiday coverage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, nor any hint that it is a prerequisite step before calling getPublicHolidays. The intended use is only implicit from the tool name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no additional behavioral details such as pagination, filters, or output format, but with annotations covering the key aspects, a 3 is reasonable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise and to the point, earning a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description need not explain return values. However, with no parameters and no mention of how the repository is identified, the description lacks clarity on prerequisites (e.g., which repo). It is minimally complete but leaves ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The tool likely uses implicit context (like repo from environment), but the description provides no further semantics. However, with 100% schema coverage and no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists issues for a GitHub repository, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like getRepo and searchRepos, but doesn't specify the repo parameter, which is absent from the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it is for listing issues, but does not state when to use it versus other GitHub tools like getRepo or searchRepos. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are provided, but the context is clear enough for basic use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not add behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description does not clarify session invalidation, side effects, or authentication requirements. For a session-affecting operation, this is a missed opportunity to disclose behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It earns its place and is immediately scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, clear action), the description is adequate. It doesn't mention return values, but an output schema exists, and the behavioral expectations for a logout operation are intuitively captured. Slightly more context (e.g., idempotent nature) could be added, but it's complete for practical purposes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. Per rubric, 0 params baselines at 4. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters, and the schema provides complete coverage (vacuously).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Logs out') and the resource ('current logged in user session'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like loginUser. This is a textbook clear purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, any prerequisites (e.g., must be authenticated first), or alternatives. It simply states the function without context or exclusion criteria, offering no help for an agent deciding between tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, such as 'public holidays' implying a list, but it does not mention any potential variations in holiday definitions or regional differences. Given the strong annotations, this level is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, has output schema), the description is nearly complete. The output schema likely details the holiday data structure, so the description need not explain it. However, it might be slightly incomplete in not specifying that you need to know the country code or how to get it, but that's a minor gap. Overall, it's adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters and the description mentions 'country and year' as the criteria, which is not present in the schema. Since there are no parameters in the schema, the description is the sole source of information about what inputs are needed. The description effectively communicates the required parameters (country and year) even though they are not formalized in the schema, earning a high score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get public holidays for a country and year' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (public holidays) with relevant filters (country and year). It distinguishes itself from siblings like getAvailableCountries, which retrieves a list of countries, not holidays. However, it could be more specific about the output format or scope, but it is still clear enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving holidays for a particular country and year, which is clear. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus others, such as getAvailableCountries for country codes first, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives. It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions, but the context is sufficient for a straightforward query.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which fully cover the safety profile. The description adds the specific behavior of retrieving an order by ID, which is consistent with annotations. It could add more context like return format, but with strong annotations, the description adds sufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, which is efficient. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is extremely brief and lacks any additional context, but for a simple lookup tool, this is acceptable. A 5 might include a bit more detail on the ID parameter, but this is near-optimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, unchanged safety profile, output schema exists), the description is adequate. It does not explain how the ID is provided, which is a gap, but the presence of an output schema and strong annotations compensate. The description could be more complete by noting the ID requirement, but it is not incomplete for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema shows zero parameters, the description implies a parameter (order ID) that is not in the schema. This is a mismatch, but the description does not explain how the ID is passed. However, since schema coverage is 100% and parameters are 0, the description provides the minimal necessary meaning. Baseline 4 is appropriate for 0 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'purchase order by ID', which is specific and aligns with the tool name. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'getPetById' but the resource is distinct enough. A 5 would require explicit differentiation, but the purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of retrieving a purchase order by ID is self-evident. It lacks any exclusion criteria or mention of alternatives like 'getPetById'. The agent can infer usage from the name and description, but no explicit guidelines are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context, but for a simple addition operation this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise phrase that conveys the entire purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the trivial complexity of the operation, the presence of an output schema, and full parameter documentation, the description is sufficiently complete. No additional information about return values or side effects is needed beyond what annotations and schemas provide.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters a and b are fully documented in the schema with descriptions 'First number' and 'Second number', achieving 100% schema coverage. The description 'Add two numbers' adds no semantic detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add two numbers' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like echo-server.echo by specifying the arithmetic operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. However, the purpose itself implies it should be used whenever two numbers need to be added, which is a basic implied usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the logical inputs; it does not mention authentication, rate limits, not-found behavior, or return semantics, though the output schema partially covers that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to identifying both the action and the required resource identifiers.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only operation with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The main gap is that the owner/name inputs named in the description do not appear in the input schema, leaving some invocation ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters in the schema, the description still names the meaningful logical inputs 'owner' and 'name', adding value beyond the empty input schema. It does not specify types or exact argument names, but the 0-param baseline keeps this at a reasonable score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and names the resource ('a GitHub repository') along with its key identifiers ('by owner and name'), so the action is immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like searchRepos and listRepoIssues by indicating a single-repository fetch rather than search or issue listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: when a specific repository is needed by owner and name. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using searchRepos when the owner/name is unknown or listRepoIssues when issue data is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already convey the safe, non-destructive nature. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., pagination, rate limits), so it stays neutral but not deficient given the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant information—highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with no input parameters and an output schema presumably defining the post structure, the description is sufficient. It doesn't mention pagination or limits, but these are not required for basic completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty (no parameters), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist; baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all posts' precisely states the tool's function—retrieving all posts—and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getPost, which fetches a single post.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: use this tool when you need all posts, but the description does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives. It's obvious from the name but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and idempotentHint: true, so the description does not need to restate that it is read-only. The description adds no further behavioral traits beyond the time horizon ('5-day') and target ('city'), which is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is needed. It does not explain location format or units, but these are likely covered by the output schema or other fields, and the description is adequate for a straightforward forecast retrieval.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters in the schema, the baseline is 4. The description mentions 'for a city,' but the schema lacks any parameter to specify it, which could be a minor gap. However, since there are no parameters to document, the description adds a reasonable amount of context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets a 5-day weather forecast for a city, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool open-weather.getCurrentWeather, which implies current conditions, 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.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a multi-day forecast is needed, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It relies on the sibling naming to convey context, which is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'all users' scope, with no details on pagination, return shape, or API quirks, which is acceptable but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three words, front-loaded, and contains no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant detail. Every word adds meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter, read-only, idempotent list operation with an output schema and complete safety annotations, 'Get all users' is sufficiently complete. No additional behavioral or return-value explanation is necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers input needs. No additional parameter details are necessary, and the description does not need to compensate for any coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the exact action (get), the resource (users), and the scope (all). It is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools like getPosts or getPetById because it identifies the resource being fetched.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, but the description strongly implies this is the tool for retrieving the full user list. No exclusions or alternative tools are referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context: encrypted, persistent memory, which conveys that the operation is a safe, non-mutating read. This complements annotations without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, 15 words, zero filler. Front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (one parameter, full schema coverage), the description is complete enough. It doesn't need to explain return values since an output schema exists. It covers the essential behavioral context (encrypted, persistent) that helps the agent mentally model the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the parameter 'key' described as 'Memory key to retrieve.' The description adds the retrieval semantic by indicating this is a lookup operation, providing enough context for the agent to understand the key's role. The baseline is 3 due to high coverage, but the phrasing 'by key' reinforces the parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: 'Retrieve a previously stored value from the agent's encrypted, persistent memory by key.' It distinctly specifies memory as the resource and the action of retrieval by key, distinguishing it from sibling memory.store and other unrelated tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for recalling stored values, but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion criteria. Since memory.store is the only direct sibling for memory operations, some implicit context exists, but no alternatives or conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying static HTML fetch and no JavaScript rendering, which is beyond annotations. No contradictions. It does not mention other behaviors like error handling, but the bar is lower given the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then the key limitation. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, existing output schema) and the annotations providing safety profile, the description covers purpose, scope, and limitations comprehensively. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage for the single 'url' parameter is 100% (the schema describes it as 'The URL to analyze'). The description does not add additional meaning beyond rephrasing it as 'webpage'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze a webpage and extract its design system' and enumerates specific aspects (colors, fonts, font sizes, spacing, layout patterns, class names). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like webscrape.scrape, which likely performs general scraping.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for design system extraction and notes the static HTML limitation ('does not render JavaScript'), giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for dynamic pages) or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds valuable behavioral traits beyond annotations: encryption and persistence across sessions, which inform the agent about side effects. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates purpose and key behavioral traits without any fluff. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 3 parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately covers persistence and encryption. No gaps are apparent; it's complete for the agent's decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for key, value, and ttl. The description does not add new semantic nuance beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it stores a key-value pair in the agent's encrypted, persistent memory, with a specific verb ('store') and resource ('key-value pair in memory'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling memory.recall (retrieval) by contrasting store vs. recall.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implies usage (to persist data across sessions) and clearly differentiates from memory.recall (retrieval). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the context is clear enough without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it performs a static HTML fetch and does not execute JavaScript, which is a key limitation. This enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool actually does.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose and outputs; the second adds a critical limitation. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, what it returns (title, headings, links, images, text), and its key limitation. No missing behavior or parameter info is needed beyond the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'url' parameter, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by stating the URL will be fetched as static HTML, implying it should be a direct page URL rather than a JS-driven app. This is a meaningful constraint beyond the schema's simple 'The URL to scrape'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Scrape' and resource 'webpage', and enumerates the extracted structure: 'title, headings, links, images, and text content'. It also adds a distinguishing limitation ('static HTML fetch') that separates it from sibling tools like webscrape.extractDesign.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: for static HTML pages, explicitly noting '(does not render JavaScript)'. This implies when not to use it (JS-heavy sites) but does not name an alternative tool, so it falls short of an explicit when-not/alternatives statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mirajmahmudul/agentdevx-sdk'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server