odei_connect_plan
Return the ordered local ODEI install plan and reporting contract.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| os | No | ||
| session_token | Yes |
connect
by ai.odei
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it 'returns' data, implying a read operation. No side effects, auth needs, or rate limits are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but lacks any structure like examples or additional context. It is efficient though minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, the meaning of 'ordered local', or how the 'os' parameter influences the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so parameters (os, session_token) are undocumented in schema. The description adds no meaning to these parameters, such as how 'os' affects the plan or where to get session_token.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'ordered local ODEI install plan and reporting contract', distinguishing it from siblings like 'odei_connect_handshake' or 'odei_connect_status'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites or contexts like initial setup vs. reporting. The agent gets no hints for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: handshake, plan, report step, status, talk for the ceremony; recall and remember for memory. No overlap between tools or groups.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tools use snake_case, but prefixes are inconsistent: five use 'odei_connect_' and two use 'wm_'. While each group is internally consistent, the mix across a single server named 'connect' is confusing.
Tool Count4/5
7 tools is a reasonable count, not too few or many. However, the server covers two distinct domains (ceremony and memory), which might be better separated.
Completeness3/5
The connect ceremony tools cover handshake, plan, report, status, talk—seemingly complete for a session lifecycle. The memory tools only provide read and write, missing update and delete, which are notable gaps for a memory store.