open-mcp-apps
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.5.12
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose, clearly separated by domain prefixes (data_*, file_*, app lifecycle, store). Even related tools like file_write vs file_write_begin/chunk/commit are well-differentiated, and internal tools are explicitly marked.
Naming Consistency4/5Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (list_apps, restore_app, save_app) or a noun_verb pattern within domains (data_list, file_read). There are a few deviations like app_history and app_html, but they are still readable and predictable.
Tool Count2/5With 33 tools, the surface area is large and exceeds the 25-tool threshold. Several tools are marked 'internal' or 'not useful to call directly' (app_html, app_store_preview, get_app_guide), which adds noise and suggests the set could be trimmed.
Completeness5/5The toolset covers full lifecycle management for apps (create, read, edit, delete, restore, promote), data (CRUD, batch, versioning, change tracking), files (upload/download/delete with chunking), and app store operations. No obvious gaps or dead ends.
Average 4.5/5 across 33 of 33 tools scored. Lowest: 3.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 14 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
Tools from this server were used 64 times in the last 30 days.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
This server has been verified by its author.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context on 'group' and 'fields' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects, ordering, or what happens if the collection doesn't exist. No contradiction with annotations is present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and uses no redundant words. It efficiently explains the tool's purpose and two key parameters without superfluous detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description leaves 'position' and 'actor' undefined, which are important for correct invocation. The core action is clear, but the tool has 6 parameters and nested objects, so a fully complete description should cover more parameter semantics. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (17%), so the description's clarification of 'group' as a lane/section and 'fields' as a JSON object with an example is valuable. However, 'position' and 'actor' remain unexplained, and 'collection' is only implied, not explicitly defined. The description partially compensates for the schema gaps but does not fully cover all parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add an item to a collection') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like data_update_item, data_move_item, and data_delete_item. It also elaborates on the 'group' and 'fields' parameters, making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for adding new items but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like data_update_item or data_move_item. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative scenarios, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the operation semantics but does not disclose additional behaviors such as optimistic concurrency via expected_version or the role of the idempotency key.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded and concise. Every word adds value, with an example to clarify the use case.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimally viable given the annotations and output schema, but it lacks guidance on when to use this versus data_update_item and does not address the expected_version or actor parameters. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description clarifies the purpose of 'group' and 'position' by tying them to the move operation, but schema description coverage is only 17%. It does not explain parameters like expected_version or actor, leaving a gap for a 6-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Move an item') and the target scope ('to another group and/or position'), with a concrete example ('e.g. kanban column'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like data_update_item or data_delete_item.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (when you need to change an item's group or position) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It falls short of naming other data_* tools or stating 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.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. Description adds 'permanently' which indicates irreversibility, and specifies scope to files an app has stored. However, no details on error behavior or version considerations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded, no waste. Directly communicates action and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has 6 parameters and output schema, but description is extremely minimal. It doesn't address idempotency implications or concurrency controls (expected_version). However, given annotations and output schema, it's moderately complete for a simple delete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 17% (command_id), and description provides no parameter explanations. Parameter names are self-evident, but description does not clarify semantics for expected_version, actor, or request_state.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Permanently delete' and resource 'one file an app has stored,' clearly distinguishing from delete_app and file_write tools. Scope is precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like file_write or delete_app. Context implies deletion of app-stored files, but no direct exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the confirmation_required behavior and guides the agent on how to handle it, including referencing the 'note' field. This is useful, even though 'note' is not defined in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief, two sentences, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence is somewhat dense but still focused. No excessive words, though the wording could be clearer about the 'note' reference.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the confirmation flow, which is important for a destructive operation, but it omits details about other parameters and edge cases. The output schema exists, so return values are not required, but the description could be more thorough about the delete process.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 17%, so the description must compensate for the underdocumented parameters. It adds some meaning to request_state (required for confirmation flow) but does not explain actor, expected_version, require_confirmation, or the idempotency key usage beyond what the schema already says. The reference to 'note' is confusing because it is not a parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action and resource: "Delete an item permanently." It distinguishes from sibling tools like data_add_item, data_update_item, and data_move_item by specifying the permanent deletion operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context when it explains the confirmation_required flow: show the note and resend with request_state. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use it versus alternatives or exclusions, though that is somewhat implicit given the tool's name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish idempotency and non-read-only behavior. The description adds valuable details beyond that: argument validation against declared params, failure responses including the declared schema, and success replies containing the return value plus a per-write receipt. These behaviors are not present in annotations, enriching the agent's expectations without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adding behavioral details. Every clause adds information: purpose, no-UI nature, validation, error handling, and return content. There is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters, nested args, and an output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: what it does, how args are validated, how failures are reported, and what the success reply contains. It omits nuances like the actor enum's effect, but the output schema and overall clarity keep it reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 20% schema description coverage, the description carries a heavier burden. It does clarify that 'args' are checked against the app's declared parameters, giving meaning to that field. However, it does not explain 'actor' or add any semantics beyond what the names imply for 'app' and 'function'. This is adequate but not fully compensating for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Run a function an app declares (manifest.functions)'. The added phrase 'data in, data out, no UI needed' immediately distinguishes this from UI-oriented siblings like open_app and app_html, making the tool's scope unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this is for headless function execution ('no UI needed') and even gives retry guidance after failures ('failures return the declared schema so the retry needs no extra read'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, stopping short of full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent), the description discloses shallow-merge semantics, null-based field removal, and optimistic concurrency. It does not cover conflict error handling or permission requirements, but the optimistic concurrency mention is a valuable behavioral hint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the verb and object, uses a parenthetical for the key removal detail, and ends with a concise concurrency note.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the core behavioral contract well. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit conflict-handling guidance, but the optimistic concurrency mention plus the schema's expected_version description suffice.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 40%, and the description compensates for the 'fields' parameter by explaining shallow merge and null removal. It also hints at expected_version via optimistic concurrency, but leaves 'actor', 'id', and 'command_id' semantics to the schema or inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Shallow-merge fields into an item') with a clear resource (an item) and defines the semantics of key removal via null. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like data_add_item, data_delete_item, and data_move_item.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the tool is for updating existing items via shallow merge, and the null-removal note adds important usage detail. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the operation is distinct enough within the data_* sibling group.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds valuable context: the upload is consumed regardless of success or failure, and retries from file_write_begin are the recovery path. This goes beyond the annotation flags and helps the agent understand the consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and includes a critical behavioral note about upload consumption and restart, making every word count.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is moderately complex due to the chunked upload workflow, but the description covers the finalization action, the equivalence to file_write, and failure recovery. Output schema exists, so return details are not needed. The main gap is parameter documentation, but overall the picture is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 40%, and the description does not compensate by explaining parameters like mime or expected_version. It implicitly clarifies the role of path (target file name) and upload_id (the upload), but does not add enough detail to fully overcome the schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool finalizes a chunked upload into an app file, using specific verbs like 'finalize' and 'create or overwrite'. It distinguishes itself from file_write by calling itself the chunked equivalent, which precisely identifies its role among sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains this is the chunked counterpart to file_write, implying it is used after chunked upload steps. It also provides a clear 'on failure, restart from file_write_begin' guideline, giving a recovery path. While it does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternative tools, the context is strongly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds valuable context that the restore is non-destructive ('nothing is lost — history is preserved and you can roll forward again') and that it creates a NEW current version. This goes beyond structured metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loading the core purpose, then adding workflow. The parenthetical about non-destructive behavior is useful but makes the sentence dense. Overall, every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, non-destructive nature, usage trigger, prerequisite, and post-restore step. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially with sibling context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 'checkpoint' (with description) and 'command_id', but 'name' remains undocumented. The description adds context for 'checkpoint' via app_history but does little to explain 'name' or further clarify command_id. Schema coverage is 67%, so the description only partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: rolling an app back to an earlier checkpoint by re-saving its HTML as a new current version. It distinguishes from siblings like app_history (which lists checkpoints) and open_app (which views), and clarifies it's non-destructive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when to use ('when a newer edit broke the UI'), prerequisite ('Get the checkpoint number from app_history'), and follow-up action ('after restoring, open_app to view it'). Does not mention when-not or alternatives, but gives clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that 'nothing is installed' and describes the sandboxed nature with 'mock-data fixtures' and 'LIVE sandboxed preview card,' which goes beyond the annotation. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with 'Internal,' and each sentence conveys a distinct piece of information: what it returns, why it exists, and that it's safe and not for direct use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a single parameter, an output schema, and annotations. The description covers the purpose, internal nature, side-effect-free behavior, and sandboxed output. Nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'name' is documented in the schema with reference to app_store_list, so coverage is 100%. The description itself doesn't add any parameter detail, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses 'returns' as the verb and specifies the resource: an App Store entry's ui, manifest, and mock-data fixtures. The 'Internal' prefix and 'Not useful to call directly' clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like install_from_app_store or get_app. It's specific about the purpose: rendering a sandboxed preview card.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly marked 'Internal' and 'Not useful to call directly,' which tells agents not to invoke it directly. However, it does not name an alternative tool to use instead, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explains the two optional slots ('an omitted slot keeps its current value'), the 'manifest: null clears the declaration' behavior, the requirement that 'Creating needs ui,' versioning ('Every save snapshots both slots as one new version'), and the explicit instruction to open the app immediately. No contradiction with the idempotentHint (true) or destructiveHint (false) annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact but information-dense, with four sentences covering purpose, slot behaviors, constraints, and versioning. It is well-structured with semicolons and clear references to get_app_guide. No wasted words, though slightly dense for quick scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, two optional slots, versioning), the description covers the key behavioral aspects: slot optionality, null clearing, create prerequisites, snapshot/versioning, and next-step guidance. It references get_app_guide for detailed contracts, and the output schema exists so return values don't need explanation. Minor gap: no explicit mention of the expected_version overwrite check, but that is covered in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the create-vs-update condition ('Creating needs ui') and the snapshot semantics for both slots, which are not fully explicit in the individual parameter descriptions. It also reinforces the meaning of ui and manifest without repeating the full schema details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create or update a UI app in the persistent registry.' It specifies the resource (UI app) and the action (create/update), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_app, restore_app, and edit_app by framing it as the persistent save operation for the app registry.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implicit usage guidance: it says 'Creating needs ui' and 'After saving, open it IMMEDIATELY with open_app,' which suggests a save-then-open workflow. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like edit_app or state when to prefer save_app over other update mechanisms, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint true and openWorldHint false provided by annotations, the description adds context about the return content (trust tier, capability grants) and its internal purpose for the loader widget. This goes beyond the annotation flags without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: the first states purpose and scope, the second gives explicit usage guidance. Every word earns its place, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple internal read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and directs to the recommended alternative. It is appropriately scoped and complete for its intended use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single required parameter 'name' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention 'name' at all, forcing the agent to infer it refers to the app name from context. This is insufficient for a tool with no schema parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns raw app HTML plus trust tier and capability grants, specifically for the universal loader widget. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_app, making its purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says it is internal, not useful to call directly, and directs users to get_app to read source. This is clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide safety flags (readOnlyHint false, etc.). The description adds valuable behavioral context: chunks must be strictly ordered, and resending with the same seq is a safe no-op. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two focused sentences: the first states purpose, the second explains ordering and retry semantics. No redundancy, front-loaded, every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool in a multi-step upload flow, the description covers essential lifecycle context (started with file_write_begin), ordering, and retry safety. Output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. Missing explicit error cases but not necessary for core usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers two of three parameters with descriptions (seq and data_base64). The description reinforces seq's purpose (0-based index for safe resend), adding meaning beyond the schema's description. upload_id lacks description, but the coverage is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool appends the next chunk of base64 bytes to an upload started with file_write_begin. It names a specific verb and resource, and the mention of file_write_begin distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_write_commit and file_write.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implicitly defines when to use: after file_write_begin, before commit, and explicitly requires sending chunks in order, one at a time. It also explains safe resend behavior with seq, giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read nature is known. The description adds behavioral context by enumerating what the guide contains (contract, tokens, data model, template), making the tool's output predictable. It does not introduce contradictions and offers meaningful detail beyond the structured annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two punchy sentences: the first delivers an imperative usage directive, the second lists the concrete contents. No filler or redundancy; every word earns its place and the most important instruction is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple guide tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core return value well (contract, tokens, model, template). It does not list the individual chapters (functions, embed, style), but those are enumerated in the schema, so completeness is adequate. Slightly more detail about how the topic parameter alters the output would push it to 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the 'topic' parameter is fully documented with an enum and a clear description ('which chapter... Each chapter stands alone'). The tool description does not need to repeat this. It neither adds nor detracts, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and names the exact resources delivered: the window.oma API contract, CSS design tokens, data model, and a minimal working app template. It also includes an explicit 'READ THIS FIRST' instruction, clearly distinguishing it as an orientation/guide tool from siblings like get_app or edit_app.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The opening 'READ THIS FIRST before creating or editing an app' is an explicit when-to-use directive. It signals the tool is a prerequisite step before mutation tools like save_app or edit_app. The description does not list alternatives, but the strong directive makes usage context unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-read-only, so the description adds context beyond them: 'Privileged writer' and exclusivity over reserved keys. It does not contradict annotations; 'Upserts' aligns with idempotentHint. However, it stops short of explaining required auth levels or exact behavior with invalid keys, which is partly covered by the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and distinctiveness. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and annotations provide idempotency, the description covers the essential context: purpose, exclusivity, and operation type. It could mention side effects or permission requirements in more detail, but it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to compensate. The description's mention of 'reserved keys' and 'upserts' reinforces the schema's key/value definitions but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what 'key' and 'value' descriptions already provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a 'Privileged writer for reserved settings keys' and explicitly names the key prefixes (security:* / policy:*). It distinguishes from siblings by stating it's 'the ONLY tool that can write them', making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides alternatives by mentioning 'the generic data_* tools refuse reserved keys', implying when to use this tool vs those. It also labels it a 'Privileged writer' and 'Upserts one key/value', clearly conveying the use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds extra behavioral context by stating 'Renders no UI' and emphasizing 'every data collection', which goes beyond the structured annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with no wasted words: purpose, usage scenarios, and a behavioral note. The most important action ('List every data collection') is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and a relevant behavioral trait (no UI). No critical information is missing given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the empty input schema fully covers the inputs (100% schema coverage). With no parameters to explain, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly avoids inventing unnecessary parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every data collection'), including the fields returned (name, item count, last activity). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like data_list (which lists items within a collection) and list_apps (lists apps).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage contexts: 'Use when unsure where data lives, what boards the user has, or which collection to bind an app to.' It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use, but the scenarios are concrete and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral details: returns a paginated page, provides usage totals, supports cursor-based pagination and prefix narrowing, and explicitly notes it renders no UI. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies the tool's scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place (page structure, totals, pagination, prefix, opaque nature, UI behavior). No filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the available annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's role, key parameters' behavior, and differentiation from siblings, without needing to explain return shapes because the output schema handles that. It's a model description for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline meaning for all parameters. The description adds semantic richness by explaining how limit/cursor work together for paging and that prefix narrows results, plus the conceptual distinction of these being opaque app files. This supplements the schema without redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files an app has stored'), and clearly states the output (page of path/size/mime/version plus usage totals). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly separating opaque user files from structured data collections.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: for listing opaque user files like attachments and exports, as opposed to structured data. It implies the alternative (data_list) without naming it, and the pagination/prefix options give practical usage guidance. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., 'use file_read for content'), but the context is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so write behavior is known. The description adds valuable beyond annotations: uploads expire after 30 idle minutes, per-file ceiling is 250 MiB, and an upload_id is returned. This contextualizes the operation's lifecycle without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact yet information-dense. Each sentence serves a purpose: stating the trigger condition, outlining the workflow steps, and noting limits. No filler or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is part of a multi-stage process, the description explains the entire flow (begin → chunk → commit) and critical constraints. It also notes an upload_id is returned, and since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required. Context is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'app' is fully described in the schema as 'the app this file will belong to' (100% coverage). Since the schema carries the full parameter meaning, the description need not add more. It does not provide extra parameter details, matching the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Start a chunked upload for a file too big for file_write's single call.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly referencing the chunked upload workflow and naming file_write, file_write_chunk, and file_write_commit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'for a file too big for file_write's single call.' It also maps the full sequence of operations: returns upload_id, use file_write_chunk to send bytes, then file_write_commit to name the file. Additionally, it includes expiration and size constraints that affect when to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds behavioral context by noting the registry is reusable across chats, lists the user's openable apps by default, and allows widening via kind/visibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, each adding meaningful information: registry scope, the reuse-over-create guideline, and parameter usage. No wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only list tool with three optional params and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is listed, default filtering, lookup behavior, and how to broaden the search. It is self-sufficient and well-rounded.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping parameters to use cases: 'pass name to look one up' and 'widen with kind/visibility', which clarifies intent beyond enum definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists UI apps in the registry, with a specific resource ('UI apps') and scope ('reusable across all chats'). It distinguishes itself from creating or opening apps by framing the registry as a lookup surface.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: 'prefer opening it over creating a new one' and explains how to narrow results with name or widen with kind/visibility. It does not name sibling tools explicitly but gives enough context for choosing this over a create/open action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by framing the result as an 'interactive widget,' noting immediate availability for recently saved apps, and comparing against dedicated open_<name> tools. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could elaborate on what an interactive widget entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact—three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage/alternative, and preference. It front-loads the core action and keeps supporting information tightly relevant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema available, read-only annotations), the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage scenario, timing, and a best practice for reuse. The output schema handles return-value details, so no further description is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema carries the parameter details. The description reinforces that the app parameter names a registry app and hints at collection binding via the reuse guidance, but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the structured schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Open ANY app from the registry by name as an interactive widget.' It immediately distinguishes from data_list ('no UI') and dedicated open_<name> tools, making the tool's role unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use the tool ('when the user wants to SEE or OPERATE the data') and identifies the alternative for reading facts (data_list). It also gives timing guidance (works immediately for recently saved apps vs dedicated tools that may take a while) and a reuse preference for collections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only'. Beyond the annotation, it adds valuable context: the tool is engine-owned, it describes existing preferences rather than reading effective values, and it lists the fields included. This gives the agent a clear behavioral model without redundancy.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and every word earns its place: it states the resource, its contents, its consumer, the alternative for effective values, and its read-only nature. No filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only catalog tool with an output schema, this description is fully complete. It explains the tool's purpose, ownership, field structure, and relationship to oma.pref(), while the output schema covers return format. Nothing important is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema confirms this (empty properties). The description adds no parameter information needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate since there is nothing to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies this as a catalog of shared preferences, with a specific verb ('describes') and precise scope (key, type, label, default, options). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it 'only describes what exists' and that it is engine-owned, which no other sibling tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: it is the catalog the settings app renders, and it explicitly tells when not to use it ('Apps read effective values via oma.pref(); this tool only describes what exists'). It does not name an alternative sibling tool, but the oma.pref() reference serves as a functional alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the windowing behavior (offset/length, data_base64, next_offset) and the whole-file sha256 hash for reassembly verification. This provides deep insight into the tool's operational behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact but information-dense, efficiently conveying the windowed reading model and reassembly process in a few sentences. The reference to get_app avoids unnecessary repetition while maintaining clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential aspects of windowed reading, including offset/length, data_base64, next_offset, and the whole-file hash for validation. Given the output schema exists and the complexity is moderate, the description is sufficiently complete to guide an agent without ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While the schema already describes length and offset, the description adds the crucial windowing semantics ('offset/length select it', 'data_base64 carries exactly that window') that explain how these parameters interact. It also clarifies the meaning of the whole-file hash, adding value beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb+resource: 'Read one file an app has stored'. It also details the windowed byte access mechanism, distinguishing it from other app-related tools like get_app and file_write.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates the tool is for reading file content and mentions 'same window grammar as get_app' to signal related usage, but it does not explicitly enumerate when to use this tool over siblings. The context is clear enough for a tool specifically named 'file_read'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it notes that the tool shows install state and renders no UI. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and provides useful additional insight into what the agent should expect from the tool's output and 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first phrase. Every word contributes to meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description provides everything needed: what the tool lists, the install-state information, the no-UI behavior, and a pointer to the alternative for UI. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to clarify parameter meanings. It adds value by describing the content of the list (ready-made, high-quality apps shipped with the engine) which helps the agent understand what the tool returns. Baseline for zero params is 4, and the description meets it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('browse') and resource ('built-in App Store'), and distinguishes itself from sibling open_app by explicitly noting that it renders no UI. This makes its purpose unambiguous and differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: to browse the built-in App Store programmatically. It also provides an explicit alternative, open_app {app: "app-store"}, for when a UI is desired, making the usage boundaries clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even with readOnlyHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it reveals that user widget edits are included in the change stream, events are returned oldest-first with full details (actor, item id, fields), and omitting 'since' only returns the current position. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three dense sentences carry the entire behavioral contract without repetition. The most important concept ('what changed since you last looked') is front-loaded, and every clause adds necessary detail about marks, return ordering, and event contents.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description fully covers the tool's semantics: what events are returned, the meaning of 'since', how to continue paging via next_since, and the surprising inclusion of user widget edits. With an output schema present, there is no need to enumerate return fields, making this complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67%, so the description's burden is moderate. It enriches the 'since' parameter by explaining acceptable mark types (write ack seq, data_list version, next_since) and the consequence of omitting it. It does not elaborate on 'collection', but the overall context is sufficient; the extra mark semantics push this above baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('returns') and clearly identifies the resource: a collection's event stream since a held ledger position. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing that it includes edits made in the widget that never pass through the agent, which data_list and data_version do not cover.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear when-to-use guidance by explaining how any existing mark (write ack seq, data_list version, or next_since) serves as the 'since' parameter. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name an alternative for full collection snapshots, though it references data_list's version as a source, which implies its role.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the meaning of seq as a global change indicator, the existence of sub-counters, and the cost-effectiveness ('cheapest possible'). This goes beyond the structured annotations, though it doesn't discuss edge cases or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, each earning its place: first states what it returns, second explains the decision rule, third provides context. No fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and behavioral implications. It explains when to use (before re-listing) and what the return value indicates, making it complete for an agent to decide and invoke.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description doesn't need to explain parameters. It adds no additional parameter semantics but none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the global change counter (seq) plus sub-counters, with a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('change counter'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like data_changes by positioning as 'the cheapest possible change check' and explaining its use for skip re-reading.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'If seq hasn't moved since you last looked, NOTHING changed anywhere — skip re-reading' and 'Widgets use this for adaptive polling; you can too before re-listing a collection.' This tells the agent exactly the context for using this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description adds valuable behavioral details: overwriting bumps version, writes are limited to a few MiB, files persist, and are app-owned and reusable across chats. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and constraints without contradicting any annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes meaningful information (purpose, data_base64 handling, version bump, size limit, persistence). No redundant wording or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description fully covers the essential context: file persistence, overwrite behavior, versioning, size constraints, and cross-chat reusability. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly without further clarification.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description elevates the meaning of data_base64 with explicit guidance ('pass any file the user gave you or that you generated') and clarifies overwrite/version semantics that tie to expected_version. Other parameters are adequately self-describing in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Store a file for an app (create or overwrite by path).' The verb 'store' plus the resource 'app file' and the create/overwrite behavior precisely distinguish it from sibling tools like file_write_begin and file_write_chunk, which handle multi-part writes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it accepts any file the user gave or the agent generated, and it notes that single-call writes are limited to a few MiB, implying larger files should use the chunked write tools. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tools, so it stops short of a fully explicit when-not-to-use directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral risks: hosts may silently drop the middle of oversized results, editing a mutilated source destroys it, and windows carry version/hash for safe edits. It also explains node and slot behavior, providing rich context that annotations do not capture.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is dense yet compact, with every sentence contributing either to the core operation, the safety rationale, or the parameter semantics. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then details mechanics without verbose padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity, output schema, and annotations, the description is complete: it covers the read-only nature, window mechanics, truncation risk, version/hash coupling to edits, node jumping, and manifest slot behavior. No significant gap remains for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: offset/length select the window, node jumps to a specific element, and slot:manifest returns the declaration object. This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions and clarifies how parameters interact.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Read an app's ui source as a WINDOW,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and key mode of operation. It also distinguishes the manifest slot behavior from the default ui window, making the tool's scope and purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when windowing is needed (to avoid silently truncated oversized results) and ties the returned version/hash to edit_app and save_app, giving strong contextual guidance. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like app_html or get_app_guide, so guidance on alternatives 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.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals that installed apps rely on the store for UI updates and that seeding data via data_batch is critical to avoid a half-delivered app. This is important behavioral context not present in annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage and a high-value workflow warning. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present) and good annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral expectations comprehensively. No significant gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents both parameters (name and command_id), so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning. The mention of app_store_list for the name parameter is already captured in the schema's description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool installs or updates a ready-made app from the built-in App Store into the user's registry. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning app_store_list and contrasting with edits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It instructs to use app_store_list to see what is available, and notes that UI updates come from the App Store rather than edits, implying this tool is for installing/updating store apps instead of editing them. This provides clear when-to-use and 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.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond annotations by detailing the atomic nature, preservation of other keys, OCC guard, new version creation with history, no-op for existing apps, and refusal to downgrade. It also clarifies idempotency via command_id, aligning with the idempotentHint annotation. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact yet packed with essential information: action, effects, constraints, and alternatives. Each clause serves a purpose (atomicity, manifest behavior, versioning, no-op, downgrade refusal). No redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the core behavior, edge cases (no-op for already apps, downgrade refusal), and security/correctness aspects (OCC-guarded, history kept). An output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description. The description is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (name, command_id), each with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no further parameter-specific semantics, but the schema already handles this, earning the baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: upgrading a 'visual' app to a full app by flipping the kind in the manifest. It uses specific verbs ('Upgrade', 'promote'), identifies the resource ('kind:"visual" app'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like save_app by explicitly noting demotion is handled elsewhere.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Already an app is a no-op' indicates the tool is only for visual apps, and 'downgrades are refused — demoting is an author edit (save_app with the manifest)' names the alternative tool for demotion. This clears up potential confusion with save_app.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: tombstone semantics (data/files/history kept), cascade's two-step confirmation with disposition plan, and the permanent, non-undoable nature of cascade. It also clarifies that shared or unprovable collections are always kept, which is critical for understanding the tool's impact. No contradiction with annotations; destructiveHint and idempotentHint are consistent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is dense but efficient; every sentence adds critical information about behavior or usage. It is front-loaded with the primary action and then elaborates on modes and confirmation. Slightly lengthy due to the complexity of the cascade flow, but still concise given the tool's nuance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the two deletion modes, the irreversible-cascade chain, the disposition plan requirement, and the preservation rules for shared/unprovable collections. This provides enough context for an agent to execute correctly and explain the outcome to a user.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description significantly enhances understanding of the 'data' parameter by explaining tombstone vs cascade and the request_state flow. However, it does not cover the semantics of 'name', 'actor', or 'command_id' beyond the schema (which itself omits descriptions for name and actor). With schema coverage at 60%, the description partially compensates but leaves some param meanings implicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete an app from the registry' — a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes two deletion modes ('keep' tombstone vs 'cascade' permanent) and explicitly references restore_app as the undo path, setting it apart from sibling tools like restore_app and file_delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode: use 'keep' for a reversible tombstone and 'cascade' for permanent deletion. It instructs the agent to read the disposition plan to the user and re-send with request_state, effectively outlining the confirmation workflow. Also warns that cascade is not undoable and that shared/unprovable collections are always kept, helping the agent decide appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals atomicity ('All edits apply together, or nothing applies'), ordering ('string edits apply after ranges, in order'), constraints ('Range offsets... must not overlap'), and a post-save behavior ('#oma-manifest block is re-read'). These go far beyond the annotations and give agents a robust behavioral model.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core value proposition, and every sentence contributes actionable detail (edit forms, ordering, atomicity, manifest behavior). No fluff or repetition of schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two edit modes, versioning requirements, and atomic application, the description covers the key operational rules: how to structure RANGE and STRING edits, their order, atomicity, version alignment, and the manifest re-read. The output schema handles return values, so no gap remains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 80% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description elevates it by explaining the two edit forms (RANGE vs STRING), which fields belong to which form, and how 'expect_hash' relates to get_app's output. It also clarifies the 'app' vs 'name' naming inconsistency, aiding correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Surgical edits to an app WITHOUT round-tripping the whole source,' clearly identifying the action (edits), target (app), and distinguishing it from full-source alternatives like save_app. It further details two edit forms, making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'WITHOUT round-tripping the whole source' implies use over save_app for targeted changes, and RANGE being called 'cheapest' provides selection guidance. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when-not to use, so it falls short of a 5 but is clear enough for a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses that the tool returns metadata only, not source, which is a deliberate design to keep context small. It also uncovers tombstone semantics (survives delete_app) and that each checkpoint snapshots both UI and manifest, providing restoration context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, each adding distinct value: listing action, checkpoint numbering and restore usage, and tombstone persistence. No fluff, every sentence earns its place, and key details are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it returns, what it doesn't return, how to use the results with restore_app, and edge-case behavior (deleted apps). No missing critical information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only has a 'name' string with no description. The description's phrase 'an app's checkpoints' clearly implies 'name' is the app identifier, but it doesn't explicitly state that the parameter is the app name or define any format. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description provides just enough context but could be more explicit about the parameter's role.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('an app's checkpoints') with an explicit output shape ({checkpoint, ts, ui_size}). It clearly distinguishes itself from get_app by saying 'metadata only, NEVER the source' and from restore_app by noting that checkpoint numbers are used by restore_app.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'use get_app for the current source' for retrieving source, implying use app_history when you need checkpoint metadata. It also establishes a relationship with restore_app ('restore_app takes that number') and notes that history survives delete_app, which is useful for deleted apps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses critical behavioral traits: all-or-nothing transaction with first-failure rollback and error naming, reply format ({id, seq}), and that rows are not returned. This goes well beyond the annotations, which only hint at idempotency and non-destructiveness, adding real operational context for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, command format, transaction semantics, and response format. No filler or redundancy; the description is front-loaded with the most important constraint (ONE transaction, up to 200 writes).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex batch tool, the description covers the essential operational aspects: usage examples, command schema (via reference to sibling tools), transaction behavior, failure reporting, and response format. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, and annotations handle safety hints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67% (actor lacks description), but the description compensates by fully explaining the 'commands' array structure, linking each command to the corresponding single-write tool and enumerating the 'type' values. It also clarifies command_id as an idempotency key. The actor parameter remains undocumented in text but is self-evident via its enum.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb+resource+scope: 'Apply up to 200 writes in ONE transaction' clearly states the batch-write purpose. The description explicitly differentiates from single-write tools with 'instead of one call per row' and lists the four supported write types, making the tool's role unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit use cases ('seeding an app' or 'filling a board in one go') and contrasts with alternatives ('instead of one call per row'). It also identifies the 200-write limit and implies when the tool is appropriate by mapping commands to the single-write tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even though annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, the description goes well beyond that baseline by detailing pagination mechanics (limit, total, next_cursor), the full filter operator set, and a notable caveat: 'items moved mid-page can be skipped or repeated.' This discloses non-obvious behavioral edge cases that an agent would otherwise be unaware of.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is dense but every sentence contributes something essential: purpose, UI exclusion, paging format, filter semantics, and a paging caveat. It is front-loaded with the core function, then logically flows to details. There is no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields in detail, but it still mentions the key return elements (id, total, next_cursor). It covers pagination, filtering, and potential anomalies, making it fully sufficient for an agent to use effectively, especially given readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents each parameter, but the description adds substantial semantic depth. It explains how 'match' works (bare value equals vs. operator object), how comparisons behave for numeric/string/ISO dates, and what 'next_cursor' signifies. This goes far beyond the schema's simple descriptions, making the parameter behavior actionable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read items in full — every field, plus the item id you need to update or delete it.' This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling write tools (data_add_item, data_update_item) by highlighting that it returns IDs needed for those operations. It also contrasts with open_app by explicitly noting 'No UI (use open_app for that).'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to read full items and obtain IDs for updates/deletes, or to page through data with filtering. It explicitly names an alternative (open_app) for UI needs, and the phrase 'use open_app for that' gives a direct when-not-to-use signal. While it doesn't enumerate all sibling data_* tools, the read vs. write distinction is obvious from the first sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/2nd1st/open-mcp-apps'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server