Spala Public MCP

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

Without annotations, the description provides minimal insight into behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but doesn't confirm whether it is read-only, destructive, or requires special permissions. The one-sentence description is insufficient.

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

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

The description is concise (one sentence) but may be too brief, sacrificing important detail. It is front-loaded but lacks structure that would help the agent quickly parse key information.

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

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

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not describe return format, pagination, or error conditions, leaving the agent with significant unknowns.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the parameters 'limit' and 'query' beyond their names and schema types. The agent gets no additional context on how to use them effectively.

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

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

The description specifies 'list Spala addons/integrations', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It is not a tautology but lacks explicit differentiation from siblings, though no other sibling appears to perform this function.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or context for its intended use case beyond the description itself.

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

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

No annotations provided; description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or what happens with empty query. Minimal information beyond the tool name.

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

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

Very concise, but underspecified. Would benefit from a short second sentence to explain parameters or usage context.

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

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

With 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand return format, error behavior, or full usage scope.

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

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

Input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation for 'query' or 'limit' parameters, leaving agent to infer their meaning from names alone.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool searches the docs index. While 'Spala agent-facing docs' is slightly vague, it distinguishes from sibling tools focused on projects and add-ons.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or alternatives. The description only states the basic function without context for agent decision-making.

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

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

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses behavior: requires authentication, performs no operation, returns simulated project shape. No contradictions.

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

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

Single, front-loaded sentence with key flags ('AUTH REQUIRED. DRY-RUN ONLY.') and clear explanation. No wasted words.

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

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

No output schema, so agent lacks return structure details. Description says 'simulated project shape' which is vague but sufficient for a no-op tool. Could be improved by hinting at return fields.

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

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

Schema has 0% description coverage. Description does not add meaning to parameters like 'name', 'template', 'description' beyond what the schema provides (empty descriptions).

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

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

Explicitly states 'DRY-RUN ONLY. Effect: no-op. Returns a simulated project shape.' Clear verb-resource mapping and distinguishes from siblings like project_list and project_get_*.

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

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

Specifies 'AUTH REQUIRED' and 'DRY-RUN ONLY' but does not explicitly say when not to use or name alternatives. Implies usage for previewing project creation without side effects.

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

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that authentication is required and the operation is read-only. However, it does not cover error behavior (e.g., invalid project, missing auth) or other side effects.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and lists returned fields. It could be structured better, but it is not verbose.

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

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter usage, expected input constraints, or error handling, which are critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

The description provides no information about the two parameters (slug and projectId), and the schema has 0% description coverage. The agent has no guidance on how to use these parameters.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns the MCP install manifest for a selected project, listing the fields (schemaVersion, name, project, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like project_create or project_get_public_context.

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

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

The description mentions 'AUTH REQUIRED' and 'Read-only', implying it's for reading the manifest, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

Without annotations, the description provides basic behavioral info: auth required, read-only, returns safe public context. It does not disclose behavior when both parameters are provided, error handling, or whether parameters are mutually exclusive. The 'safe' qualifier implies limited sensitivity, but not detailed.

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

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

The description is two sentences and to the point, with no wasted words. It front-loads key constraints (auth, read-only). However, it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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

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

Given no output schema and minimal description, the tool definition is highly incomplete. It does not explain return format, parameter usage, error conditions, or when to use. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without guessing.

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

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about the two parameters (slug and projectId). An agent has no clue what values are expected, which parameter to use, or how they relate to selecting the project.

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

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

The description clearly states it returns safe public context for a selected project. It distinguishes from sibling tools like project_create or project_list by focusing on public context retrieval. However, it does not explain what 'public context' includes.

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

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

The description notes 'AUTH REQUIRED. Read-only.' which clarifies authentication and read-only nature. It does not specify when to use this tool versus siblings like project_get_mcp_manifest or docs_search, nor when not to use it.

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

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

Description labels the tool as 'Read-only' and 'AUTH REQUIRED', disclosing key behavioral traits. However, without annotations, it lacks details on response format or side effects, though the tool has no parameters.

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

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

Three concise sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads purpose and traits, the second adds actionable auth guidance.

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

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

Adequate for a no-parameter list tool, but does not describe the return output. With no output schema, the description could be improved by indicating the response structure.

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

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

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable as there are none.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool lists projects available to the user, with verb 'List' and resource 'projects'. It distinguishes from siblings like project_create and project_select, which have different actions.

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

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

Provides explicit authentication guidance for unauthenticated users, but does not compare with sibling tools for when to use this specific list vs others.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It correctly declares 'Read-only' and 'AUTH REQUIRED' but does not address behavior when inputs are invalid or how multiple parameters are handled.

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

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

Two succinct sentences deliver all key information. The critical instruction about URL derivation is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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

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

Covers core purpose and a vital behavioral rule, but lacks description of return format, error handling, or what happens if both parameters are provided. For a tool with no output schema, more detail on the result would be helpful.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'slug' and 'projectId'. It does not explain their relationship, which to prefer, or input format requirements.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool selects a project and returns its mcpUrl for backend work. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_list or project_create.

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

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

The description specifies authentication requirement, read-only nature, and explicitly warns against deriving URL from other sources. While it gives practical guidance, it does not directly compare to sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states it is the 'first call' but offers no information about side effects, read-only status, authentication requirements, or state changes. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficiently front-loaded. However, it is overly terse and lacks structure, failing to earn its place with substantive information. It is not verbose, but it is incomplete.

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

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is the sole source of context. It only states 'First call' without explaining what happens, what is returned, or why it is first. This is completely inadequate for a tool that appears to be a crucial starting point.

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

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

The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so there is no parameter detail to clarify. The baseline score of 3 applies because the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given no parameters exist.

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

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

The description says 'First call for agents connected to mcp.spala.ai public MCP' which indicates it is an onboarding or initialization tool, distinguishing it from siblings like spala_help or project_create. However, it does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., returns server info, authenticates), leaving its purpose vague beyond being the initial call.

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

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

The description implies it should be called first, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives (e.g., spala_help or project_list), nor any conditions or prerequisites. There is no mention of when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. It only states the output format without further context.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without extraneous information. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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

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

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It mentions the output is 'machine-readable' but does not describe its structure or fields, leaving the agent uncertain about the response format.

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

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

There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning about the return format beyond the empty schema, fulfilling the parameter semantics dimension adequately.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'machine-readable public MCP vs project MCP routing', which is specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like project_get_mcp_manifest, but the purpose is evident.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention of how it differs from project_get_mcp_manifest or spala_get_onboarding, 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.

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or any constraints. Although the tool is likely safe, the description lacks explicit transparency about its behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's function.

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

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

Given that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and appears to be a simple help function, the description is adequate. It covers the core purpose but could add context about the output format or that it is text-based.

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

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

The input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline 4 is appropriate as schema coverage is 100% (empty schema).

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it explains what Spala is and guides agents on how to start. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like addon_list, docs_search, or project_create.

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

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

The description implies usage for introductory queries about Spala, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'List' implying read-only, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The description does not contradict any annotations (none present).

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

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

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and concise. Every word serves a purpose, though the extreme brevity sacrifices detail.

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

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain what a template is, the effect of parameters, or the structure of the response. It is insufficient for complete understanding of the tool's behavior and output.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides no information about the parameters ('limit', 'query') or how they affect the listing. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema structure.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('List') and the specific resource ('Spala backend templates'). It provides context ('for agent planning') and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'addon_list' which lists different resources.

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

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

The description gives minimal context ('for agent planning') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of when not to use or criteria for selection.

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