ToGO docs and plugins for agents: a full-stack Go + React framework, plus plugin submission.
Scored across 6 tools
Most tools target distinct resources and actions: framework overview, document fetching, document search, plugin listing, plugin details, and plugin submission. There is mild overlap between get_doc and search_docs around documentation retrieval, and get_plugin partially overlaps with get_doc, but the plugin-specific scope is clear enough.
Most tools follow a readable verb_noun pattern (get_doc, get_plugin, list_plugins, search_docs, submit_plugin). However, framework_overview breaks the pattern with a noun-only name, and doc/docs singular/plural usage is inconsistent.
Six tools is well-scoped for a framework documentation and plugin marketplace server. Each tool covers a distinct part of the workflow without obvious bloat or redundancy.
The surface covers framework overview, document retrieval/search, plugin browsing, plugin detail, and plugin submission. A dedicated way to list available docs/repos is missing, but search_docs and list_plugins provide reasonable workarounds.
What togo is, its stack, and how to start a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the informational content returned, which implies a read-only overview, but it does not explicitly confirm safety, side effects, or that it requires no parameters; this is minimal but adequate for a low-risk info tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, short phrase with no wasted words; it is front-loaded and direct. The fragment style is terse but still conveys the scope, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description must convey what the tool returns. It does state the content topics, which is likely sufficient for invocation, but it omits any usage context relative to overlapping siblings, leaving a minor gap.
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?
Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage (vacuously). The description has no parameter semantics to add, consistent with the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.
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 names the resource (togo) and enumerates the specific content it provides: what the framework is, its stack, and how to start a project. This is clearer than a tautology and lets an agent know it returns an overview, though it does not differentiate from sibling doc tools like get_doc or search_docs.
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 on when to use this tool versus get_doc, search_docs, or other siblings. The description supplies no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, 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.
Fetch a repo's full README/documentation as Markdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | repo slug, e.g. 'cli', 'togo', 'ui' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return format (Markdown), but says nothing about auth requirements, what happens for an unknown/renamed repo, or whether large docs are truncated — meaningful gaps for a fetch tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it fetches and the format returned, which is nearly sufficient. The remaining omission is failure behavior for a missing repo, which is minor.
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 single 'repo' parameter already documents the slug format with examples. The description's phrase 'a repo's' confirms the parameter's role but adds no syntax or constraint beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('repo's full README/documentation') and output format ('as Markdown'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search_docs, though 'full' implies a contrast with search results.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'full ... documentation' suggests this is for retrieving an entire repo's docs rather than searching snippets, which distinguishes it loosely from search_docs. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternatives are given, and no relationship to framework_overview is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get a plugin's details and full README.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | plugin slug, e.g. 'auth' or 'cache-redis' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at the return payload ('details and full README') but says nothing about permissions, whether the README is truncated or large, error behavior for unknown slugs, or caching. For a zero-annotation tool this is a thin disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and the returned content are stated immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what 'details' includes and how the README is returned. Naming the README helps, but the rest of the response shape and any failure modes are left unspecified for a tool an agent will call blind.
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 single 'slug' parameter already has an example ('auth', 'cache-redis'). The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier format or resolution rules, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (plugin) plus the exact payload (details and full README), so the agent knows this is a single-item detail fetch rather than a listing. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_doc or list_plugins by name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to prefer this over list_plugins when you already have a slug, or over get_doc/search_docs. The agent must infer the selection rule 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.
List the togo plugin marketplace (installable capabilities, fetched live).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | optional category filter |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. 'fetched live' is a genuine and useful disclosure (results are real-time, not cached), and 'List' implies read-only. However, nothing is said about pagination, result limits, or rate limits, which matter for a live-fetched enumeration.
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 with the verb and resource first and a clarifying parenthetical second. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and that data is live. It is slightly thin on result shape/pagination, but the tool's complexity is low enough that little more is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single 'category' enum fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does not mention filtering by category at all, adding no meaning beyond structured fields.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('togo plugin marketplace') and clarifies what the resource is ('installable capabilities'). It implicitly contrasts with the singular get_plugin sibling via 'List', but never names or disambiguates against search_docs or get_plugin explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' — an agent can infer this enumerates all plugins, but the description gives no condition for choosing it over get_plugin or search_docs, no prerequisites, and no scoping guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search togo repos and docs by keyword (live).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | keyword(s) to match against repo names + descriptions |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it largely does not: the only behavioral signal is the parenthetical '(live)', which is ambiguous (live source vs. live index vs. real-time). There is no mention of result format, limits, pagination, or whether results include docs as well as repos.
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 short sentence with the action and resource front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical '(live)' is the only low-information fragment and slightly muddies an otherwise crisp line.
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 one-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable: the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. However, an agent gets no guidance on what a result looks like or how to choose this over get_doc/framework_overview.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the word 'keyword', while the schema actually specifies the match targets ('repo names + descriptions'); the description's broader claim of searching 'repos and docs' creates mild tension with the narrower schema wording rather than clarifying it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('togo repos and docs') plus the mechanism ('by keyword'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns candidates for. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_doc, but the search-vs-fetch distinction is inferable from the wording.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'by keyword' suggests exploratory lookup versus get_doc's single-document retrieval, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over get_doc or framework_overview. No prerequisites, exclusions, or fallback conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Submit a new plugin to the togo marketplace. Returns a prefilled GitHub issue URL (the plugin-submission form).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| category | No | ||
| repo_url | Yes | GitHub URL of the plugin repo | |
| description | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the single most important behavioral fact: this tool does not itself create a plugin, it hands back a prefilled GitHub issue URL. It omits everything else an agent would want to know about a submission path - validation rules, duplicate handling, auth requirements, and whether any state changes server-side.
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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, outcome second. Nothing is padded and nothing needs to be moved.
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 return value is explained verbally despite there being no output schema, which covers the biggest hole for a URL-returning tool. But with 4 parameters, 3 of them required and undocumented in both schema and description, and no guidance on the category vocabulary, the definition is only adequate for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only repo_url is documented, and generically as 'GitHub URL of the plugin repo'). The description adds no meaning for name, category, or description - notably it never says what category values are expected, despite category being free-form with no enum.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (submit a plugin) and scopes it to the togo marketplace, which is enough to separate it from the read-only siblings (get_plugin, list_plugins, search_docs). It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the write/submit framing is 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?
There is no explicit when/when-not statement or named alternative. However, the second sentence ('Returns a prefilled GitHub issue URL') implies the actual usage pattern: the agent must surface that URL to the user rather than treating the call as a completed submission. That is meaningful implied guidance but not a stated policy.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
framework_overviewget_docget_pluginlist_pluginssearch_docssubmit_pluginThe cloud for agents. Tools for AI agents to register, build, and deploy other agents. Zero human required.
Gemmein docs, API reference, error explainers and a live integration check for coding agents.
Agent-Native Google Slides - generate and edit React presentations
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.