MCP-REPL

Tool Scores

• executeA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions auto-runtime detection and supports for code/shell commands, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key features without unnecessary details. Every sentence adds value, making it easy to understand quickly.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity (executing code in multiple languages), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning code snippets and shell commands which map to 'code' and 'commands' parameters, but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage details.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose as executing code in multiple languages with auto-runtime detection, distinguishing it as a primary tool for testing hypotheses. It specifies both code snippets and shell commands as inputs, though without sibling tools, differentiation isn't applicable.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage for testing hypotheses before implementation, providing some context, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. No sibling tools exist to compare against.

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