CPU telemetry & benchmarking, SHA-256 hashing, AES-256-GCM storage, AI video/image via Nova.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.1/5 across 19 of 19 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
Each tool has a distinct name and purpose within its domain (billing, engine, media, security, storage, gateway). While there is some semantic overlap (e.g., engine_maxion_status vs. engine_maxion_diagnostics), the specific functions are clear enough to avoid misselection.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: some tools use domain_entity_action (engine_maxion_activate), others use domain_action (billing_activate), and one uses just domain_status (gateway_status). The inclusion of 'lineage0' and '0' suffixes adds further irregularity.
19 tools is on the higher end but justifiable for a multi-service gateway. However, several tools are stubs (NOT IMPLEMENTED), and there are multiple status/diagnostic tools per domain, which makes the set feel padded rather than tightly scoped.
The tool surface is incomplete in several areas: security lacks functional quarantine and logging, engine lacks a working deactivate, and there is no way to manage billing subscriptions or view media history beyond a simple archive list. The presence of explicitly NOT IMPLEMENTED tools highlights these gaps.
billing_activateActivate Gumroad License KeyAAfter completing a Gumroad purchase, call this with your product_permalink and license_key to verify and activate your access. For Lineage.0, the key is consumed after one successful video generation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| license_key | Yes | The license key from your Gumroad purchase email. | |
| product_permalink | Yes | The Gumroad product permalink (e.g. 'quezar-monthly'). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | No | Activation result and expiration time. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotation Contradiction: annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description says the tool 'activates' access and that the key is 'consumed' for Lineage.0, implying state mutation and side effects. It also fails to disclose implications of repeated calls or activation failures beyond the contradictory read-only hint.
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 front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence earns its place: the first defines the action and trigger condition, the second adds an important product-specific consumption behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple two-parameter activation tool with an output schema, so the description covers the essential purpose and a key caveat. It does not discuss duplicate-activation behavior or failure cases, but the annotation set already provides non-idempotency and the output schema covers return details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful lifecycle semantics: the license key is consumed after one successful Lineage.0 video generation, and both parameters are tied to a completed Gumroad purchase, which goes beyond the schema 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 a specific action: verify and activate Gumroad access using product_permalink and license_key. It distinguishes itself from billing_purchase and engine activation tools by referencing post-purchase Gumroad activation.
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?
It gives explicit temporal guidance: call this after completing a Gumroad purchase. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the context is clear enough for this activation flow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
billing_purchaseGet Trial or Purchase LicenseAInspectReturns a Gumroad checkout link for hourly/monthly access to Maxion/Diamonize/Quezar, or a per-video consumable credit for Lineage.0 ($0.14/sec). Each Lineage.0 key is one-time use -- one key, one video.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| duration | Yes | For maxion/diamonize/quezar: 'trial' (free 30 min), 'hourly', or 'monthly'. For lineage0: number of seconds (6, 12, 30, 60, or 120) -- each purchase is a single consumable video credit. | |
| tool_name | Yes | The tool namespace to license. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | No | License details or checkout URL. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool returns a checkout link rather than executing an activation, and it highlights the one-time-use restriction for Lineage.0 keys. This goes beyond the sparse annotations, though it does not mention link expiration, authentication, or whether any backend record is created.
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 sentences deliver the essential purpose, pricing, and a critical behavioral caveat with no filler. The main clause is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the one-time-use detail where it belongs.
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 output schema and full parameter documentation, the description adequately covers the main branches and the important one-time-use caveat. It could have stated whether the link is immediately usable or if any further activation step is required, but the current description is sufficient 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context by explaining the per-second pricing, the consumable nature of Lineage.0 credits, and the correlation between duration values and tool families. This helps an agent understand the intent behind otherwise ambiguous enum values.
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 a Gumroad checkout link and distinguishes the two purchase modes: hourly/monthly access for Maxion/Diamonize/Quezar and per-video credits for Lineage.0. It is specific about the resource and output, and the mention of 'checkout link' differentiates it from sibling tools like billing_activate.
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 indirectly indicates when to use the tool by mapping tool names and duration formats to their respective licensing models. It does not explicitly contrast with billing_activate or state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for obtaining checkout links versus activation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
engine_maxion_activateActivate Maxion V16AInspectActivates Maxion V16 and returns live host telemetry: CPU brand, core count, current load, memory usage, and CPU package temperature (where the OS exposes a sensor).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| duration_minutes | Yes | How long to keep the engine active, in minutes. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | No | Telemetry output and activation state. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful context by specifying the live telemetry returned and the OS sensor caveat, but it does not disclose side effects, activation lifecycle behavior, or whether the engine remains active after the duration ends.
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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the core action and lists key return data. Every element earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-parameter schema, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly conveys the action and return surface, though it could be stronger on when to use it relative to sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% because duration_minutes is clearly described as 'How long to keep the engine active, in minutes.' The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Activates Maxion V16') and the resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like engine_maxion_deactivate and engine_maxion_status by emphasizing both activation and the specific telemetry returned. The verb is specific and the scope is concrete.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as engine_maxion_status or engine_maxion_diagnostics. The description does not state prerequisites, when activation is appropriate, or when another sibling tool should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
engine_maxion_deactivateDeactivate Maxion V16ANOT IMPLEMENTED — returns an error. The Maxion engine exposes no deactivate operation, so no governor or power state is changed. Use engine_maxion_status for live telemetry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | No | Deactivation status message. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it returns an error and changes no governor or power state, aligning with the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations. It adds implementation status context that annotations don't capture, giving the agent a full picture.
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 front-loaded with the critical 'NOT IMPLEMENTED' notice, then explains consequences and provides an alternative. Every word earns its place—no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a stub tool, the description fully covers what an agent needs: it's unimplemented, has no side effects, and points to a useful alternative. The existence of an output schema doesn't require elaboration here, and the description is complete for its simple purpose.
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?
With zero parameters and full schema coverage, the description has nothing to add. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because the schema already trivially documents the absence of 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 that the tool is not implemented and returns an error, explicitly distinguishing it from functional siblings like engine_maxion_activate and engine_maxion_status. It identifies the intended operation (deactivate) but immediately signals it's a stub.
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?
It explicitly tells the agent not to use this tool due to non-implementation, and recommends engine_maxion_status for live telemetry. This provides a clear alternative and implicitly warns against relying on this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
engine_maxion_diagnosticsMaxion V16 DiagnosticsBRuns a Maxion V16 diagnostic pass: CPU brand, core count, and total memory for the host system.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deep_scan | No | When true, runs extended diagnostics in addition to standard checks. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | No | Hardware diagnostic report. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds context by specifying the exact diagnostic outputs (CPU brand, core count, total memory) and host system scope, though it doesn't mention parameter behavior or side effects 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, no filler, with the action and key outputs front-loaded. Every word contributes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, safe diagnostic tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior. It omits deep_scan specifics, but the schema covers that. Given the tool's low complexity, this is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema fully describes the single deep_scan boolean parameter with its effect ('When true, runs extended diagnostics'). Since coverage is 100%, the description need not repeat it; it adds no additional parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Runs' and identifies the 'Maxion V16 diagnostic pass' as the resource, clearly stating the outputs (CPU brand, core count, total memory). It distinguishes from siblings through the diagnostic focus, though it doesn't explicitly compare with engine_maxion_status.
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 vs alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools for status or activation, 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.
engine_maxion_statusMaxion V16 StatusAReturns Maxion V16's current CPU load and CPU package temperature from the host system.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | No | Current hardware and engine telemetry. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which establish this as a safe read-only operation. The description adds a small amount of context by specifying 'from the host system,' but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as output units, potential latency, or error conditions. It complements the annotations and does not contradict them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and directly states the tool's function. It avoids any fluff or repetition of schema or annotation information, making every word earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter, read-only status tool, the description is complete: it specifies the exact two metrics returned (CPU load and CPU package temperature) and the source (host system). The presence of an output schema covers return value formatting, and the annotations cover safety, so the description doesn't need to elaborate further.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and there is nothing to explain about parameters. According to the rubric, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description focuses on output semantics, which is sufficient given the absence of inputs.
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 Maxion V16's current CPU load and CPU package temperature from the host system.' This uses a specific verb ('Returns') and names the exact resource (Maxion V16) and the two specific metrics (CPU load, CPU package temperature), distinguishing it from sibling tools like engine_maxion_diagnostics which would cover broader diagnostics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as engine_maxion_diagnostics or gateway_status. The description simply states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer usage. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
gateway_statusGateway System StatusAHolistic health overview: all 19 tools, current license status, billing info, and Quezar vault statistics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | No | System health overview and tool counts. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful scope context ('all 19 tools, current license status, billing info, Quezar vault statistics'), but it does not disclose additional operational behavioral details such as potential latency, permission requirements, or whether the view is cached.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one tightly structured sentence that leads with the core purpose ('Holistic health overview') and enumerates the included areas. There is no redundancy or filler, and it leaves out details that are already in the annotations and schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is fully adequate for a zero-parameter, read-only status tool that has a rich annotations set and an output schema. The output schema handles return-value details, so the description only needs to state the aggregate scope, which it does effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the empty schema; per the rubric, the baseline is 4. The description effectively explains what the tool returns, which is the only semantic the agent needs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific purpose: a 'Holistic health overview' covering all 19 tools, license status, billing info, and Quezar vault statistics. This makes it clearly distinguishable from the more focused sibling status tools like engine_maxion_status, security_diamonize_status, and storage_quezar_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by indicating this is the system-wide, aggregate health check, which implies it should be used when a global view is needed rather than a subsystem-specific status tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the 'all 19 tools' scope makes the intended usage evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
media_lineage0_archiveLineage.0 Media ArchiveALists recently synthesized Lineage.0 multimedia artifacts from the AWS S3 vault.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | No | Archive artifact list. |
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 context about the source (AWS S3 vault) and temporal scope ('recently synthesized'), but does not disclose potential limitations like result limits, pagination, or the exact definition of 'recently,' which would be valuable for an agent.
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, well-constructed sentence that opens with the action verb 'Lists' and immediately conveys the resource and source. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (no parameters), the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what is listed, where from, and the recency criterion. No additional details are necessary for an agent to invoke this 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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and baseline is 4. The description enriches the meaning by specifying that the output consists of recently synthesized multimedia artifacts, which helps the agent understand what the (empty) input implies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Lists') and a specific resource ('recently synthesized Lineage.0 multimedia artifacts from the AWS S3 vault'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like media_lineage0_generate (which likely creates artifacts) and media_lineage0_status (which reports status).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'recently synthesized' implies the tool is intended for viewing artifacts after generation, and the archive naming context suggests it is for retrieval rather than creation. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., 'for generation, use media_lineage0_generate').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
media_lineage0_generateGenerate AI Video or ImageAInspect4K AI video via Amazon Nova Reel 1.1 or commercial-ready images via Nova Canvas. Polls until synthesis completes and returns a presigned download URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes | Natural-language description of the desired video or image content. | |
| duration | No | Required for media_type='video': the purchased credit's duration in seconds. Must match the duration passed to billing_purchase. | |
| media_type | Yes | Output format: 'video' for 4K Nova Reel 1.1 synthesis, 'image' for Nova Canvas commercial-grade image. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | No | Generated media URL or synthesis job status. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations: it polls until synthesis completes and returns a presigned download URL. It does not mention billing prerequisites or failure behavior, but the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) align with a creation operation and no contradiction exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single 22-word sentence front-loads the purpose and includes the key behavioral trait (polling) and output form (presigned URL). 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?
The description covers purpose, output modalities, and return behavior; output schema presumably documents the presigned URL. The billing dependency is referenced in the schema's duration description, so the description is mostly complete, though it could ideally mention that a purchased credit is required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with clear per-parameter details (media_type enum, prompt semantics, duration tied to billing_purchase). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states the tool generates 4K AI video via Amazon Nova Reel 1.1 or commercial-ready images via Nova Canvas, with a distinct verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like archive and status by describing a creation workflow.
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 makes the tool's role as the media generation entry point obvious among storage/security/billing siblings, and mentions polling behavior that sets expectations for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions for non-video/image workloads.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
media_lineage0_statusLineage.0 Cluster StatusAReal-time status of the Lineage.0 Nova synthesis cluster and S3 vault.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | No | Cluster availability and queue status. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'real-time' and the specific cluster/vault components, providing some contextual depth. It does not describe return format or caveats, but with annotations covering safety, the bar is lowered and this 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no waste, front-loaded with the core function. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplar of 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?
For a simple no-parameter status tool, the description adequately identifies the resource and real-time nature. An output schema exists to detail the response shape, so the description needn't elaborate further. Sibling differentiation is handled by the resource name.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, so the input schema is trivially 100% covered. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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 provides real-time status of a specific resource (Lineage.0 cluster and S3 vault), distinguishing it from sibling status tools for other resources. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', making it slightly less action-oriented than ideal.
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 checking cluster status but does not explicitly state when to use this over sibling status tools (e.g., engine_maxion_status) or provide exclusions. It relies on the resource name for differentiation, offering clear context but no alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
security_diamonize_logsDiamonize Security LogsANOT IMPLEMENTED — returns an error. No interception log is kept, so there are no entries to return and no basis for any verdict about the host.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of recent log entries to return (default 10, max 100). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | No | Interception and event log entries. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fully discloses the behavior: returns an error. It also states the underlying reason (no interception log), which is transparent beyond the read-only annotations. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's actual functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two clear sentences that convey the essential information without any superfluous text. It is well-structured and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a stub tool, the description is complete. It explains the non-implementation, the error behavior, and why no data exists. No further details about return values are necessary since it returns an error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the 'count' parameter with default and max, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantics for the parameter, but since the tool is not implemented, the parameter's role is moot. The description does not contradict or enhance the 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 is NOT IMPLEMENTED and will return an error. It explicitly mentions the absence of an interception log, making its non-functional purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from functional sibling tools.
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?
It explicitly instructs that the tool is not implemented, thereby guiding the agent to avoid using it. The explanation that no logs exist reinforces that any attempt will result in an error, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
security_diamonize_quarantineDiamonize QuarantineANOT IMPLEMENTED — returns an error and isolates NOTHING. The Diamonize engine exposes no quarantine operation; a flagged target is left untouched and must be handled by other means.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | Absolute file path or process name to record as quarantined. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | No | Quarantine action outcome. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fully discloses that the tool returns an error, isolates nothing, and is not implemented. This goes beyond annotations by explaining why it fails (engine exposes no quarantine operation). No contradiction with annotations; idempotentHint true is consistent with a no-op. The agent is fully informed about the tool's 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 two sentences, front-loads the critical 'NOT IMPLEMENTED' warning, and wastes no words. Every sentence carries essential information about the non-functionality and the reason behind it. Highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a stub tool, the description is complete: it states the tool is not implemented, what it does (nothing), why (engine lacks the operation), and suggests handling the flagged target by other means. There is no missing information that an agent would need to understand the tool's current status.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'target' parameter. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, but since the tool does nothing, parameter semantics are moot. The baseline score applies because the schema already documents the parameter adequately, though the description does not compensate for the fact the parameter is useless in practice.
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 is not implemented and returns an error, explicitly saying it 'isolates NOTHING.' This specifies the non-functional purpose and distinguishes it from real quarantine tools. The verb 'quarantine' in the name might imply action, but the description immediately clarifies that it does nothing.
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 says 'must be handled by other means,' implying this tool should not be used, but it does not explicitly say 'do not use this tool' or name concrete alternatives. It gives a general warning about its non-functionality but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the obvious implication that a failing tool should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
security_diamonize_scanDiamonize Security ScanAHashes a target file (SHA-256) on this endpoint. It performs NO signature matching, so it cannot return a clean or infected verdict — the result is always INDETERMINATE. Use the engine-backed stdio gateway for a real scan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | Absolute file path to scan, or the literal string 'SYSTEM_MEMORY' to scan active RAM. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | No | Security scan analysis and verdict. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important behavioral details beyond annotations: it performs no signature matching and always returns an indeterminate verdict. However, it refers to 'target file' while the schema also allows 'SYSTEM_MEMORY', creating a minor inconsistency that slightly detracts from full transparency.
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, consisting of two sentences that convey the essential information without redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and directly addresses the tool's function and limitations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The combination of annotations, schema, and description provides a fairly complete picture of the tool's behavior and scope. The only gap is the file vs. memory inconsistency, which is partially resolved by the schema description, but the description itself could be more consistent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the 'target' parameter, including the option for 'SYSTEM_MEMORY'. However, the tool description says 'Hashes a target file', which contradicts the schema's allowance for memory scanning, potentially confusing an agent about the parameter's semantics.
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 that the tool hashes a target file using SHA-256 and explicitly notes that it performs no signature matching, always returning an INDETERMINATE result. It also distinguishes itself from a real scan by directing users to the engine stdio gateway, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance to use the engine stdio gateway for a real scan, which clarifies when not to use this tool. It could be more specific about appropriate use cases (e.g., integrity checks), but the limitation and alternative are clearly communicated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
security_diamonize_statusDiamonize Scanner StatusAReports Diamonize's real posture on this endpoint: no scan engine and no resident shield process run here, so nothing is intercepted or monitored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | No | Security posture telemetry. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it reports that 'no scan engine and no resident shield process run here', explaining what the status actually reveals. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the tool's purpose and key behavioral insight with no filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters, a rich annotation set, and an output schema present, the description fully covers the semantic needs. It explains what 'status' means in this context (no scan engine, no shield process, nothing intercepted), making selection and invocation straightforward. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter documentation burden. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Reports Diamonize's real posture on this endpoint', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like security_diamonize_scan and security_diamonize_logs by focusing on status reporting rather than actions or logs.
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 checking security posture ('on this endpoint'), but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. No mention of sibling tools like engine_maxion_status or security_diamonize_scan, so guidance 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.
storage_quezar_deleteDelete Quezar RecordAPermanently purges a record from the Quezar Quantum Vault.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vault_id | Yes | The Vault ID of the record to permanently delete. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | No | Deletion confirmation message. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the word 'permanently' which reinforces the destructiveHint annotation, but does not add substantial behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide (destructive, read-only false, idempotent). It does not mention side effects like irreversibility or authentication requirements, but it is not contradictory.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that clearly conveys the purpose without superfluous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simple delete operation, a single parameter fully documented in the schema, and annotations covering destructive behavior, the description is largely complete. It might slightly benefit from noting error behavior or prerequisites, but these are not essential for typical usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter description in the schema already states 'The Vault ID of the record to permanently delete.' The tool description adds no further meaning beyond that, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (permanently purges) and the resource (a record from the Quezar Quantum Vault), which is distinct from sibling tools like storage_quezar_list, retrieve, and store. The title 'Delete Quezar Record' is consistent and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as mentioning that records should be retrieved first to confirm the Vault ID or that archiving is an option. There are no exclusions or context hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
storage_quezar_listList Quezar SectorsALists all encrypted sector IDs currently stored in the Quezar Quantum Vault.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | No | List of active sector IDs. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the output consists of encrypted sector IDs and reflects the current state of the vault, which goes beyond annotations and usefully clarifies the return nature.
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 filler. It covers the key facts efficiently and contains no redundant wording.
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 parameters and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and output characteristics. It names the exact result (sector IDs) and scope, making it complete for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is already complete (empty object). Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline 4; there is nothing further for the description to add about 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 operation ('Lists'), the resource ('encrypted sector IDs'), and the scope ('Quezar Quantum Vault'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like storage_quezar_retrieve (specific sector retrieval) and storage_quezar_store (writing).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: this is for enumerating all currently stored sector IDs. It doesn't explicitly cite alternatives (e.g., 'for a specific sector, use retrieve'), but the context is unambiguous given the sibling tool names and the verb 'Lists all'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
storage_quezar_retrieveRetrieve Quezar DataADecrypts and retrieves a payload from the Quezar Quantum Vault by Vault ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vault_id | Yes | The Vault ID returned when the data was stored. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | No | Decrypted payload. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive read. The description adds the fact that it 'decrypts' the payload, which is useful but minimal. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool does with no wasted words. It is concise and immediately usable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one well-documented parameter, an output schema, and clear annotations. The description is sufficient for a simple retrieve operation; it need not explain return values because the output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter Vault_id is fully documented in the schema. The description adds 'by Vault ID' but no additional syntax or format details. Per baseline, 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic load.
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: 'Decrypts and retrieves a payload from the Quezar Quantum Vault by Vault ID.' It names a specific resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like storage_quezar_store, storage_quezar_delete, and storage_quezar_list.
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: use when you have a Vault ID to retrieve stored data. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selecting between retrieval and listing/status checks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
storage_quezar_statusQuezar Storage StatusAQuezar telemetry: sector count, vault size, and encryption stats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | No | Vault storage metrics. |
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 well covered. The description adds useful context about the specific telemetry categories reported, but does not describe return behavior beyond what an output schema would imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's subject and scope without wasted words. It is an ideal size for a simple status endpoint with no parameters.
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 zero-parameter schema, comprehensive annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential context: it names the subsystem, the type of data returned, and the read-only nature. No additional detail is needed for an agent to select and invoke this 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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are minimally relevant. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's output rather than inputs, matching the baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 identifies the resource as "Quezar" and the purpose as providing "telemetry" with concrete examples (sector count, vault size, encryption stats). This clearly signals a status/read tool, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'show'.
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 sibling tools such as storage_quezar_list, storage_quezar_retrieve, or storage_quezar_delete. The telemetry framing implies a monitoring use case, but there are no explicit context cues or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
storage_quezar_storeStore Data in QuezarAInspectEncrypts and stores a payload in the Quezar Quantum Vault using AES-256-GCM. Returns a Vault ID for retrieval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | Plain-text data to encrypt and store. Accepts any string up to 10 MB. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | No | Stored sector ID and encryption metadata. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation and not idempotent. The description adds the specific encryption algorithm (AES-256-GCM) and the return of a Vault ID, which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations. It does not disclose potential side effects or failure modes, but it does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded, and efficient: one sentence states the action and resource, the next states the output. There is no redundancy or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple store operation with a single well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, encryption, and output. It lacks explicit error or edge-case handling, but those are not essential given the schema covers size limits and the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the single 'payload' parameter, including type, description, and size limit, so the description need not add parameter details. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool stores and encrypts a payload in the Quezar Quantum Vault, and it returns a Vault ID for retrieval. It distinguishes itself from sibling operations like delete, retrieve, and list, making its role unmistakable.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or provide alternatives. However, the name and sibling list make the use case apparent, and the mention of retrieval indirectly implies a workflow. It falls short of explicit when/if-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.