fabric-aiops
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, targeting different resources (clients, devices, networks, org) or different aspects (list/get/usage/connectivity). Even overlapping terms like device_status vs org_device_statuses are differentiated by scope and description.
Naming Consistency4/5Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., client_get, device_inventory, reboot_device). However, some deviate (client_connectivity, network_health_score, uplink_loss_and_latency_rca) or use long phrases, but overall the naming is readable and predictable.
Tool Count3/534 tools is high for a typical MCP server, covering many read and write operations. While each tool has a distinct role, the sheer number may overwhelm agents. It is borderline but not extreme.
Completeness2/5The tool set heavily favors read operations (20+ reads) with limited writes (reboot, blink, update device/VLAN, claim/remove, bind/unbind). Missing create/delete for networks and VLANs, write access for SSIDs, switch ports, or other common configuration tasks. Significant gaps hinder full lifecycle management.
Average 4.2/5 across 34 of 34 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 25 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.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
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
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description adds only that it is read-only ([READ]), but does not disclose permissions, data freshness, or what happens if client is not found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very short (two lines), to the point, but uses unstructured text for args. Could benefit from listing or clearer formatting.
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?
Simple tool (3 params, no nested objects). Describes output stats but no response format or error handling. Adequate for a minimal tool but could add more context.
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?
Input schema has 0% description coverage. Description adds minimal meaning: target is from config and optional, client_id is from client_list (MAC). Lacks explanations for network_id and client_id formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it retrieves client connection-quality stats (assoc/auth/dhcp/dns/success) with a [READ] prefix. It implies the tool is for connectivity data, but does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like client_get or client_usage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Mentions omitting target for default but no broader context or exclusions.
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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It indicates it's a read operation and lists fields, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
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 extremely concise with two focused lines. The first line states the core function, the second provides parameter guidance. No wasted words.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It states the read nature and fields, but could mention if multiple orgs are returned or if there is any pagination.
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 adds context to the 'target' parameter ('from config; omit for default'), which the schema does not provide. However, schema coverage is 0% and the description does not elaborate on the parameter's format or possible values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists organizations visible to the API key, and specifies the returned fields (id, name, url, apiEnabled). It distinguishes itself as a read operation but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like org_get.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Only parameter guidance is provided ('target from config; omit for default'). No context on when to use this vs other org tools, or any prerequisites or alternatives.
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?
The description clearly marks the operation as read-only via '[READ]', which is good. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like error handling, rate limits, or whether the operation is safe. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.
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 very concise with no wasted words. It could benefit from a clearer structure (e.g., separate lines), but it is efficient and to the point.
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 simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding. However, it lacks information about return values, pagination, or error cases, which would improve completeness.
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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It explains 'serial' as MS switch serial and 'target' as target name from config, but does not elaborate on what 'target name from config' means or the default behavior.
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 explicitly states it is a READ operation for MS switch port configuration by serial, which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like device_inventory or device_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only provides argument descriptions, but no context about prerequisites or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description declares it is a READ operation but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or whether all networks or only accessible ones are returned. Without annotations, the description should provide more 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 very concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose and parameter details in only two lines. Every sentence is necessary and no information is redundant.
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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameter usage. It implies the return structure (list of objects with specified fields), though an explicit statement about the output format would improve completeness.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining org_id as a Meraki organization ID and target as a config target, including their default behavior. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it reads networks and lists the fields returned (id, name, productTypes, tags). The purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like network_get, which retrieves a single network.
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 explains how to use the optional parameters (org_id and target) with defaults. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description only says '[READ]' which hints at idempotency but does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, requires specific permissions, or is safe to call repeatedly. For a tool with no annotations, more behavioral context would be expected.
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 short and to the point, with two lines for the overview and three lines for parameter descriptions. It is efficient but could be more tightly integrated (e.g., inline parameter docs).
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's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description provides reasonable completeness: it states the purpose and parameter defaults. However, it does not describe the return format or any constraints, which would be helpful for an agent.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's 'Args' section adds useful meaning: it explains that org_id is the 'Meraki organization id; omit to use the target's default org' and target is 'Target name from config; omit for the default.' This compensates well for the lack of schema 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 it is a READ operation for 'Org licensing overview' and lists specific data points: status, expiration, per-device-type counts. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like org_get (general org info) and org_admins.
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 includes '[READ]' hint and explains parameters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or references to sibling tools. Usage is implied by the name and content.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation and listed fields, but does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or pagination behavior. Adequate for a simple read tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence for purpose and a structured args section. No wasted words, and key information 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?
Given no output schema, the description lists returned fields, providing sufficient context for a list tool. Could mention array output or error handling, but it is largely complete.
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?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds context: network_id source (from network_list) and target default behavior, which helps agent understand parameter usage beyond the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies that the tool reads wireless (MR) SSIDs with fields number, name, enabled, clearly differentiating from siblings like network_vlans. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'List' or 'Get', relying on '[READ]' prefix.
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 the need for a network_id from network_list, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provides exclusion criteria.
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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It signals read-only via '[READ]' and lists returned fields. However, it omits important behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., missing client_id), authentication needs, or rate limits. Adequate for a simple read but could be more transparent.
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 with a one-line purpose and an 'Args' block. It front-loads the READ tag and resource. No redundant text. Minor improvement would be bullet-points for readability, but overall efficient.
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?
For a simple get tool without an output schema, the description lists expected fields but does not specify return format, success/error indicators, or how it differs from all siblings (e.g., 'client_connectivity' is also about a single client). Could be more complete given the lack of output 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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining network_id, client_id (noting it comes from client_list), and target (with usage note). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types and required flags.
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 read operation with [READ] and lists the specific attributes returned (description, MAC, IP, VLAN, manufacturer). The verb 'get' and resource 'client detail' are unambiguous, and the mention of 'one client' distinguishes it from sibling 'client_list'.
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 parameter hints but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'client_connectivity' or 'client_usage'. The context is implied by the tool name and description, but no alternatives or when-not-to-use are mentioned.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Includes [READ] tag indicating read-only. Mentions scope 'across the org' but lacks details on pagination, data freshness, or behavior when no devices exist. Adequate but minimal.
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?
Extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, two lines for parameter docs. Front-loaded with [READ] tag and clear verb. No wasted words.
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 two-parameter tool without output schema, description covers purpose and parameters. Missing details on return format or example, but acceptable given low 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 0%, but description adds meaning for both parameters: org_id explained as Meraki org ID with default behavior, target similarly clarified. Value added beyond raw 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?
Clearly states it retrieves appliance/gateway uplink statuses across the org, specifying WAN interfaces. This distinguishes from sibling tools like device_status or device_inventory which cover broader device info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., uplink_loss_and_latency_rca). Does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.
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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden. It includes '[READ]' to indicate a safe read operation and lists the data returned. It does not cover authorization, rate limits, or any potential side effects, which are minimal for a read tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two well-structured sentences with a header and bulleted arguments. Every word adds value, and no extraneous information is present.
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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the parameters. It is 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?
Both parameters are explained: network_id is described as 'Meraki network id (from network_list)' and target as 'Target name from config; omit for the default.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's property names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it reads one network by id and lists the returned fields (name, product types, etc.). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like network_list, but the purpose is distinct.
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 indicates that network_id should come from network_list, providing a hint for usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It declares the operation is read-only via '[READ]', which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential side effects like rate limits or empty results.
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?
Extremely concise: two sentences plus two bullet points. The '[READ]' prefix front-loads the action. No unnecessary words.
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 read tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return fields. It lacks error handling or prerequisites, but overall sufficient.
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 0%, so description adds essential meaning: 'network_id' is a Meraki network id from another tool ('network_list'), and 'target' is a config name that can be omitted. This clarifies origin and default behavior.
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 starts with '[READ]' and clearly states the tool reads 'Appliance VLANs configured on a network', specifying returned fields (id, subnet, appliance IP). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling write tools like 'update_network_vlan'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'network_list' or 'switch_ports'. The Args section provides parameter sources but no context about appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates it's a read operation ('[READ]') and that data is 'rolled up to total sent/received KB,' but fails to mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'rolled up' entails. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single opening sentence followed by a bullet-like list of arguments. Every sentence adds value, and the '[READ]' prefix allows quick identification of the operation type.
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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the purpose and parameter details. However, it does not describe the output format or any pagination/limiting, which would be helpful for completeness.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning beyond the schema. It explains that network_id is a 'Meraki network id,' client_id is a 'Client id/MAC (from client_list),' and target is an optional 'Target name from config.' This provides context not available from the schema alone.
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 '[READ]' and states 'A client's usage history rolled up to total sent/received KB,' clearly specifying the verb (retrieve) and resource (usage history). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like client_list (listing clients) and client_connectivity (connection info), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 each parameter with context ('network_id: Meraki network id.', 'client_id: Client id/MAC (from client_list).', 'target: Target name from config; omit for the default.'), giving clear instructions on how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.
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?
The '[READ]' tag hints at read-only behavior, but with no annotations, the description could be more explicit about safety (no side effects), permissions, or rate limits. It discloses returned fields but not other behavioral traits.
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: a clear headline with returned fields followed by structured parameter explanations. No unnecessary words, efficiently 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?
Given no output schema, description covers return fields and parameter defaults. Could mention error handling (e.g., not found) but is largely sufficient for a simple get tool with two optional parameters.
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 0%, so description compensates by explaining both parameters: org_id (Meraki org id, omit for default) and target (target name from config, omit for default). This adds meaning beyond the schema's anyOf type and default null.
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 starts with '[READ]' indicating read-only, states 'One organization by id', and lists returned fields (name, url, api access, cloud region). This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like org_list which lists multiple organizations.
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?
Description includes parameter defaults (omit for default org/target) giving some usage context, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like org_list or org_admins. Implied usage is present but not fully clarified.
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 discloses key behavior: it is a read operation (marked [READ]), and it explains pagination semantics via 'returned'/'limit'/'truncated' fields and the need to re-run if truncated is true. Since no annotations are present, this adds important transparency beyond 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 short and structured with a purpose line followed by a bulleted argument list. Every sentence provides value, and no redundant or extraneous content is present.
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 purpose, parameters, and pagination behavior. However, without an output schema, it lacks detail on the structure of each returned row beyond 'top apps by bytes.' This is a minor gap for a tool that returns a list of records.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all four parameters: network_id source, timespan range and default, limit default and pagination note, and target omission guidance. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 starts with '[READ] Application/protocol traffic mix for a network, top apps by bytes.' This clearly states the tool's action (read), resource (traffic mix), and scope (top apps). It distinguishes from sibling tools like client_list or device_status by focusing on traffic analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as device_status or network_health_score. The description only details parameters without usage context, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.
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 no annotations, the description provides pagination behavior (truncated flag, limit defaults) and explains how to handle truncated results. It also notes that org_id and target can be omitted for defaults. This is good for a read-only tool, though it does not discuss permissions 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 front-loaded with a clear one-line summary and a structured 'Args:' list. Every sentence is informative, and there is no fluff.
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 key behavioral aspects (pagination) and parameter semantics. However, without an output schema, it would benefit from describing the structure of the returned rows (e.g., fields like status, product type, count). The current mention of 'returned'/'limit'/'truncated' is useful but not fully complete.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter: org_id (omit for default), limit (max rows, pagination hints), and target (omit for default). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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?
Description starts with '[READ]' and clearly states it retrieves org-wide device availability rolled up by status and product type. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'device_status' and 'device_inventory'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it is for org-wide aggregated data, it does not compare with sibling tools such as 'device_inventory' or 'network_health_score'.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates read-only behavior with '[READ]' and describes it as a one-shot rollup. However, it lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or data freshness, which is adequate but not thorough.
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 and front-loaded: a header line stating purpose, a usage line, and concise parameter descriptions. No wasted words.
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?
No output schema is provided, so the description should hint at the return value. It mentions 'networks + device status/product rollup,' which is vague but adequate for a high-level triage tool. More detail on the output structure would improve completeness.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explains both parameters: org_id is the Meraki organization id (omit for default) and target is the target name from config (omit for default). This adds sufficient meaning beyond 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 it's a read operation for fabric fleet health, summarizing networks and device status/product rollup. It distinguishes itself from specific sibling tools by being a one-shot triage call.
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 says 'Call this first to triage a Meraki organization before drilling into a specific network or device.' This provides clear context on when to use it, though alternatives are implied rather than named.
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?
The description includes '[READ]' to indicate read-only behavior and specifies parameter constraints, but does not detail error handling, pagination, or response format. With no annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 brief (two sentences plus an args block), front-loaded with purpose, and each line adds value. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 covers inputs well but lacks any indication of the output format or structure. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left uncertain about what the tool returns. For a list tool, this is a notable gap.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters: network_id source, timespan valid range and default, and target as optional config name. This fully compensates for the bare 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 lists clients on a network with a look-back window, using the verb 'list' from the name and specifying resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like client_get (single client) and client_usage (usage data).
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 parameter constraints (e.g., timespan range, required network_id from network_list) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature and mentions default behavior for omitted parameters. However, it does not discuss authentication, rate limits on the tool itself, or error conditions.
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?
Extremely concise: a single-line summary with a [READ] tag and a brief, structured Args block. Every sentence provides essential information without 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 absence of an output schema, the description outlines return content ('response-code counts, 429 rate-limits') but could better specify the output format or potential error states. Still, it covers the key usage context.
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 description includes an 'Args:' section that explains each parameter's purpose and default behavior (e.g., 'omit to use the target's default org'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, which lacks 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 identifies the tool as a READ operation for 'Org API-request usage overview' and specifies it covers 'response-code counts, 429 rate-limits'. This sets it apart from sibling tools like org_list or org_licensing.
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 '[READ]' tag signals safe usage without side effects. The description implies context for when to use (when needing API request usage data) but does not explicitly state when not to use or what alternatives exist. It is clear enough given the sibling list.
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?
Discloses undo capture and dry_run behavior. No annotations provided, so description carries burden; lacks failure modes, permissions, or idempotency details.
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?
Well-structured with docstring format. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. Front-loaded with risk indicator and capture behavior.
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?
Covers all parameters and key behavioral traits. No output schema, so return value not described; otherwise complete for a mutation tool.
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?
Describes allowed keys for attrs, explains dry_run, and lists required parameters. Compensates fully for 0% schema coverage by providing constraints not in 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?
Description clearly states 'Update an appliance VLAN' and highlights unique behavior 'capturing its prior values'. Distinguishes from sibling list/read 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?
Mentions dry_run for preview and undo capability, giving context on when to use safely. No explicit when-not-to-use but sibling set implies mutation purpose.
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 no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It clearly labels the tool as read-only via '[READ]' and explains the truncation mechanism. Missing details on error handling or prerequisites, but sufficient for a read operation.
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 front-loaded with the purpose, then structured as args. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Concise and well-organized.
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?
No output schema is provided, so the description should detail the return format. It mentions 'summarised by severity' and the limit/truncated fields, but lacks specifics on the alert summary structure (e.g., fields, severity levels). Could be more complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains all three parameters: network_id source, limit behavior with truncation, and target config reference, adding significant meaning beyond 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 starts with '[READ] Current network health alerts, summarised by severity.' This clearly states the action (read) and the resource (network health alerts), distinguishing it from sibling tools like network_health_score or device_status.
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 detailed parameter guidance: network_id from network_list, limit truncation behavior, and target from config. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or specify 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?
No annotations provided; the description carries the burden. It discloses it is a read-only analysis over injected data, includes a '[READ]' tag, and explains the scoring components. Missing details on authentication or error handling, but sufficient for a non-destructive operation.
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?
Well-structured with a clear title, breakdown of the score, Args, Returns, and an example. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Front-loaded with the essential purpose.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description lists all return fields, including behavior of limit and truncation. Coverable all necessary contextual information for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 description includes a detailed 'Args:' section covering all four parameters with expected structure and defaults, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. Adds meaning beyond type-only 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 it computes a composite fleet health score per network (0-100) from device, uplink, and alert data. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a weighted score rather than raw data retrieval.
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?
Provides context on how to use the tool (injecting rows, limit behavior) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it. Implicit guidance from 'no live pull' but lacks clear 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It tags the tool as [WRITE][risk=medium], explains the mutation behavior, the one-time-use constraint, and the dry_run preview. It does not cover error cases or side effects, but the core behaviors are transparent.
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 reasonably concise, using a structured format with tags and Args. The first line summarizes the core action. However, the docstring format adds some length; it could be slightly tighter without losing 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?
Given the simple parameter set (3 params, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description covers the key usage details: what the tool does, how to use dry_run, and the one-time constraint. It lacks explicit return value information, but the behavior is well-specified for its complexity.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% (only titles), so the description must add meaning. It explains that 'undo_id' comes from undo_list or an '_undo_id' field, 'dry_run' previews the inverse call, and 'target' is passed through to the inverse tool. This adds significant context beyond 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 applies a recorded undo by dispatching its inverse tool. It distinguishes from sibling 'undo_list' by specifying that it executes the undo, not just lists it.
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 to use dry_run for preview and notes that a token can only be applied once. It also mentions that the real risk is recorded in the inverse tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives beyond dry_run.
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 no annotations provided, the description adds valuable behavioral context by flagging it as a high-risk write operation and explaining the undo recording. It could be improved by mentioning prerequisites or error states, but overall it provides essential transparency.
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 with five logically organized sentences, no redundant information. The [WRITE][risk=high] tag and Args list efficiently pack essential details without fluff.
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 no output schema, the description could mention return values or error behavior. It covers the main workflow, risk, and undo mechanism, but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., duplicate serials). Still, it is largely complete for typical use.
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 has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section thoroughly explains each parameter's purpose, including the default for 'target' and 'dry_run'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema structure.
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 verb 'Claim' and resource 'devices into a network', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remove_device_from_network' by noting it is the inverse operation. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.
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 advises using 'dry_run=True' for preview and mentions undo capability, guiding safe usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives beyond the inverse note, leaving some room for 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?
The description states the tool is read-only ('[READ]'), purely analytical, and does not perform live pulls. It explains the truncation behavior and that only networks with matching 'boundTemplateId' are checked. Without annotations, this provides sufficient transparency.
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 well-organized with an Args section and a full return dictionary. It is informative but not overly verbose, though some sentences could be streamlined. The structure aids readability.
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 no output schema, the description includes a complete return structure. It covers all necessary aspects: intended use, parameters, behavior with limit and truncation, and expected output. The example further illustrates usage.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It details each parameter: 'template' (structure with id, name, settings), 'networks' (rows with specific fields), and 'limit' (default behavior and truncation handling). This significantly enhances understanding beyond the raw 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 it's a READ tool that lists drifted settings for networks bound to a config template. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('config template'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on drift analysis.
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 specifies the context ('networks bound to a config template') and emphasizes it's a pure analysis with no live pull. It provides guidance on handling the 'limit' parameter and the 'truncated' flag, but does not explicitly mention alternatives among siblings.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly marks the operation as [READ], indicating non-destructive behavior, and lists the returned fields. This sufficiently discloses the tool's safety and 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 extremely concise—three sentences including the Args block—with no unnecessary information. The purpose is front-loaded with the [READ] tag and key output fields.
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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool returns (name, email, access level) and how to use the parameters. It is adequate but could explicitly confirm the output contains only those fields.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It clearly explains org_id as a Meraki organization ID and target as a config name, adding essential context beyond the schema's empty 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 explicitly states it is a READ operation for dashboard administrators, listing the returned fields (name, email, access level). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like org_list or org_get by focusing on admins.
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 guidance on omitting parameters for defaults, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, relying on implied 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?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses high risk, records prior status for audit trail, no undo, and supports dry_run. It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, but adequately describes the side effects for a reboot operation.
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 very concise with a header indicating risk and type, followed by a short behavioral note and a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with key facts.
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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, risk, parameters, and behavioral notes. It doesn't describe the return value but is otherwise complete. Sibling tools are many, but the tool's unique action is clear.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It clearly explains each parameter: serial as device serial, dry_run as preview toggle, target as optional name from config. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type info.
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 that the tool reboots a device, with a '[WRITE][risk=high]' header indicating high-risk write operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'device_status' or 'blink_device_leds' by specifying the exact action and noting its irreversibility.
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 advises using dry_run=True to preview and warns that a reboot cannot be undone, with no undo descriptor offered. It implies high-risk usage but does not explicitly mention when to avoid the tool or compare it to 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?
Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: writes (risk=medium), captures prior values for undo, supports dry_run, and the specific attributes allowed. This provides comprehensive transparency about side effects and safety mechanisms.
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 yet complete: a short introductory sentence, a sentence detailing undo behavior, one for dry_run, and a parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded. No superfluous content.
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 lacks information about the return value (e.g., success response, updated device details) and error conditions. Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of 4 parameters, these gaps limit completeness. Otherwise, it covers most behavioral aspects.
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 description adds essential meaning beyond the sparse schema: explains that 'attrs' accepts specific keys (name, tags, address, notes, lat, lng, floorPlanId), describes 'dry_run' as a preview mechanism, and clarifies that 'target' defaults to config. The schema only defines types and titles, so the description is critical.
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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'device attributes' with specific examples (name, tags, address, notes). It distinguishes from sibling tools like reboot_device or blink_device_leds, which perform different actions. The [WRITE] tag further clarifies the operation type.
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 key usage details: dry_run for preview, undo/audit trail, and configurable target. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool (e.g., for read-only tasks) or compare it to similar tools like update_network_vlan. The context is clear but lacks explicit 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?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it is a write operation with high risk, it may refuse under specific conditions, and it details the precise undo behavior (faithful restore, unbind only if verified empty VLAN set, no undo if prior VLAN set unreadable). Dry_run behavior is also explained.
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 well-structured with a clear header, sections for refusal, undo, and dry_run, then parameter descriptions. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the core action.
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 complexity of binding a network to a template, the absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: action, refusal conditions, undo behavior, dry_run, and parameter meanings. It is very complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description specifies all parameters: network_id and template_id as required, auto_bind and dry_run with their meanings (Meraki autoBind flag, preview), and target as optional. This adds significant meaning beyond 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 action: 'Bind a network to a config template', and specifies the high-risk nature. It also mentions capturing prior binding for undo, making the purpose very specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'unbind_network_from_template'.
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 extensive guidance on when the tool will refuse (unbound network with local VLANs) and explains undo behavior in detail. It also describes the dry_run option for preview. While it doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool.
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 POST method, no config change, no undo, risk level medium, and audit trail implications. Full disclosure.
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?
Concise with purpose first. Some internal reasoning about tiering could be trimmed but adds value. Very efficient.
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 tool with no annotations or output schema, description covers purpose, parameters, behavior, and usage context thoroughly.
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?
Schema has no descriptions, so description adds all parameter meaning: serial, duration (with range/default), target (optional from config). Compensates fully.
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?
Clearly states verb 'blink' and resource 'device's locator LEDs' with purpose to find physically. Distinct from sibling tools like reboot_device.
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 describes use case (physical locate) and explains why it's not a read. Could mention when not to use but adequate.
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?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that a removed device is reset to an unconfigured state, losing name/tags/address etc., and that undo restores membership but not configuration. This provides critical side-effect information for a high-risk write operation.
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 efficiently structured with a brief intro, key warnings, and a clear 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.
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 tool's purpose, behavioral implications, parameter usage, and prerequisites. However, it does not mention the return value or output format, which would provide full completeness given the absence of an output schema.
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?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning to all five parameters: it explains the mutual exclusivity of 'serial' and 'serials', the purpose of 'dry_run' for preview, and 'target' as a config name. This compensates fully for the lack of schema 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 verb 'Remove' and the resource 'device(s) from a network'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'claim_devices_into_network' by noting it is the inverse. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to use this tool: it mentions using dry_run=True to preview and advises reading device_status/switch_ports first if needed later. It indirectly suggests alternatives by referencing the inverse operation and undo context, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.
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?
No annotations, but description fully discloses read operation, ranking criteria, thresholding, and non-black-box verdict. Also warns about truncation.
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?
Well-structured with summary and Args section. Slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value.
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?
Covers all necessary input and output details, including return dict fields, despite no output schema.
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?
Despite 0% schema coverage, description documents every parameter with defaults and explanation, including truncation behavior for limit.
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 ranks worst MX WAN uplinks by loss+latency, maps cause and action. It distinguishes from siblings like device_uplinks by adding RCA analysis.
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 context for when to use: for live pull or records injection, with a note on truncation. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives but context is 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It starts with '[READ]' indicating read-only operation, explains pagination with 'truncated' field, and describes the returned data structure. This provides comprehensive transparency.
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: a one-line summary, followed by a clear 'Args' list for each parameter. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, how parameters work, pagination details, and organization context. It is complete for an inventory listing tool.
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 0% schema description coverage, all four parameters are explained in the 'Args' section, including defaults, effects (e.g., filtering by model prefix), and special handling (e.g., re-running with higher limit). This fully compensates for the missing schema 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 reads the organization's device inventory with optional filtering by model family. It distinguishes from siblings like device_status and client_get by specifying it returns per-family counts of devices bucketed by Meraki model prefix.
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 detailed parameter guidance, especially for 'limit' (pagination behavior with 'truncated' flag). It also explains optional parameters like org_id and target. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives among siblings, though the purpose is sufficiently distinct.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It labels the operation as [READ] upfront and specifies the possible return values (online/offline/alerting/dormant), making behavior clear.
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 extremely concise, using a single line for the main purpose and a bulleted Args list. Every sentence is informative and free of 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?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently covers the operation, parameters, and return values. No critical gaps are present.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so effectively: serial with an example format, org_id and target with clear conditions for omission. This adds crucial meaning beyond the raw 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 purpose: reading a single device's availability status, listing the possible statuses (online/offline/alerting/dormant). It distinguishes itself from siblings like org_device_statuses (which covers all devices) by specifying 'one device'.
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 for the parameters (e.g., omit org_id for default org, omit target for default). It implies use when needing one device's status, but doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, leaving room for improvement.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by marking the tool as [WRITE][risk=high], explaining undo support ('Captures the template... so undo rebinds to it'), and the dry-run capability. This goes beyond basic behavior disclosure.
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 brief yet comprehensive, with a clear title line, a one-line behavioral note, and a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value without 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?
Given the moderate complexity (undo, dry-run, risk level), the lack of an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, behavior, and usage notes. No gaps remain.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides clear explanations for all three parameters: network_id (Meraki network ID), dry_run (preview flag), and target (optional target name). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 action: 'Unbind a network from its config template.' It also provides the inverse operation ('rebind'), which helps distinguish from sibling tools like bind_network_to_template.
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 implies when to use this tool (as the inverse of rebind) and provides usage context like dry-run preview. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions beyond noting the inverse operation.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it lists tokens most recent first, fetches one extra row to correctly indicate truncation, and each entry has 'effectVerified' with a detailed explanation of what false means. It also warns about lost responses making the reversal probable rather than confirmed.
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 well-structured with a clear summary followed by important behavioral notes. Each sentence adds value, avoiding fluff. It is thorough yet concise, fitting the necessary information in a readable format.
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?
While the description explains parameters and behavior, it lacks explicit mention of the output format (e.g., array of objects with fields like originalTool, inverseTool, note, effectVerified). Given no output schema, the description should fully specify the response structure to prevent 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies 'limit' as max rows (default 50) and 'target' as unused (accepted for CLI uniformity). This adds value beyond the schema but could be more explicit about the exact type or range for 'limit'.
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 lists recorded, not-yet-applied undo tokens (most recent first). It specifies the resource ('undo tokens') and the action ('list'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'undo_apply' which applies them.
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 explains when to use this tool: to view pending undo tokens before applying with undo_apply. It provides guidance on interpreting the results, such as the 'truncated' flag being measured via an extra fetched row and the 'effectVerified' field indicating reliability. It also notes the 'target' parameter is unused, preventing misuse.
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/AIops-tools/Fabric-AIops'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server