Shopmonkey MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources and actions, with clear boundaries like create/get/list/update for appointments, customers, orders, and vehicles. However, some potential overlap exists between list_inventory_parts and search_parts, which could cause confusion as both relate to parts retrieval, though descriptions differentiate listing vs. searching.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as create_appointment, get_customer, list_orders, and update_vehicle. All tools use snake_case with clear verbs, making the set predictable and easy to navigate without any deviations in naming conventions.
Tool Count3/5
With 33 tools, the count is borderline high for a typical MCP server, potentially feeling heavy and overwhelming for agents. While it covers a comprehensive automotive shop management domain, the number might exceed optimal scoping, risking complexity in tool selection and integration.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides extensive CRUD and lifecycle coverage for core resources like appointments, customers, orders, and vehicles, with additional tools for inventory, services, payments, and workflow management. Minor gaps include missing delete operations for most resources (only delete_order is present) and limited update coverage, but agents can work around these for most workflows.
Average 3.2/5 across 33 of 33 tools scored. Lowest: 2.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- 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.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' but fails to specify critical mutation semantics: whether this is a partial update (PATCH) or full replacement (PUT), what happens to omitted fields, error behavior when the ID is invalid, or whether the operation is idempotent. This lack of transparency is risky for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At five words, the description is severely under-specified for a 9-parameter mutation tool lacking an output schema. While it avoids redundancy with the structured fields, it sacrifices necessary context regarding behavioral traits and usage constraints. The brevity here represents under-documentation rather than efficient conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description inadequately prepares the agent for invocation. It omits: error handling details (404 vs 400 scenarios), side effects (cascading updates to related records), return value structure, and partial vs full update semantics. The 100% schema coverage handles inputs, but behavioral completeness is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the structured schema adequately documents all 9 parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema itself, merely implying the 'id' parameter through 'existing vehicle' without elaborating on business rules (e.g., whether changing customerId triggers ownership transfer logic). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('vehicle'), clearly indicating this is a mutation operation on existing records (distinguishing it from create_vehicle). However, 'information' is vague regarding scope, and it fails to differentiate from sibling update tools like update_customer or update_order, leaving the agent to infer the resource context solely from the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., whether to use this versus create_vehicle for new entries), nor are prerequisites mentioned (such as requiring the vehicle to exist). The phrase 'existing vehicle' implies usage constraints but does not explicitly state them.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only vaguely references filtering and pagination without explaining what happens when no filters are applied, what the default result set looks like, authentication requirements, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The two-sentence structure is appropriately front-loaded with the primary action. It wastes no words, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness given the lack of supporting annotations or output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description should provide richer context about return values, result structure, or default behaviors. As written, it is insufficiently complete for a 6-parameter tool with no other behavioral metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'filtering and pagination' which conceptually maps to the parameters but adds no specific semantic details—such as date format specifics or that locationId defaults to an environment variable—that aren't already explicit in the schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action (list) and resource (appointments) clearly, including the system context (Shopmonkey). However, it fails to differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_appointment', which presumably retrieves a single record by ID versus this tool's bulk listing capability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Supports filtering and pagination', which loosely implies when filtering is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus 'get_appointment' or other alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
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, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or return value structure. Critically, it inaccurately claims 'date range' filtering is available, which is not supported by the input schema parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the primary action. However, the inclusion of the unsupported 'date range' parameter wastes the limited space, and the second sentence is merely a parameter list that could be inferred from the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide richer behavioral context (e.g., pagination details, default sort order, maximum limits). The inaccurate 'date range' claim further reduces confidence in the description's completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While the schema has 100% coverage (baseline 3), the description introduces confusion by referencing a 'date range' filter that does not exist in the schema. It adds minimal semantic value for the existing parameters beyond what the schema already documents.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List) and resource (work orders from Shopmonkey), with sufficient specificity to distinguish from sibling list tools like list_appointments or list_customers. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the singular get_order sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., using get_order for single record retrieval) or when filtering is preferable to other search methods. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to disclose critical traits: whether this operation is idempotent, what happens if the orderId doesn't exist, whether it updates the order's balance/paid status, or what data is returned upon success. For a financial mutation tool, this lack of safety context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. However, for a 4-parameter financial tool with no annotations, it is undersized—lacking front-loaded critical context about side effects or safety that would help an agent make informed invocation decisions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a financial creation tool with rich implications (linking to orders via orderId, affecting payment balances) but zero annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should explain the relationship to work orders, validation rules (e.g., amount constraints), or the effect on order status, none of which are present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters (orderId, amount, method, notes) fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics (e.g., valid formats for method, constraints on amount), so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without additional compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('payment') and identifies the system ('Shopmonkey'). The verb 'Record' implicitly distinguishes this write operation from siblings 'get_payment' and 'list_payments'. However, it misses the opportunity to clarify that payments are applied to work orders (orderId parameter), which would strengthen scoping.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use get_payment first to check existing payments), nor any prerequisites such as requiring a valid orderId or whether the order must be in a specific state. The description is silent on usage context entirely.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. States mutation intent ('update') but lacks behavioral details: partial vs full replacement semantics, validation rules for parameter combinations (e.g., vehicleId/customerId consistency), idempotency, error handling for invalid IDs, or return value structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is efficient and front-loaded, wasting no words. However, for an 8-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description is inappropriately brief—undersized for the complexity rather than optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 8 parameters and no annotations/output schema, the description is insufficient. Lacks: explanation of partial update behavior, linking logic between orderId/vehicleId/customerId, return value documentation, and side effect disclosure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% description coverage, establishing baseline 3. Description adds minimal semantic context: 'reschedule' loosely implies date fields without explicitly mapping to startDate/endDate parameters. Does not explain parameter interactions or why only 'id' is required while other fields are optional.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verbs ('update', 'reschedule') and resource ('appointment'). Distinguishes from create_appointment by specifying 'existing' and from get/list tools by specifying mutation. However, does not clarify the relationship between 'update' and 'reschedule' (synonyms or distinct behaviors?) nor distinguish from sibling update tools (update_customer, update_vehicle).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies prerequisite by stating 'existing appointment' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs create_appointment, nor how to obtain the required ID (via get_appointment or list_appointments). No alternatives or prerequisites mentioned.
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 provided, yet description offers minimal behavioral disclosure beyond 'Create'. Fails to specify idempotency behavior, duplicate handling (email uniqueness?), return values (ID vs full object), or side effects. Carries insufficient burden for a mutation tool without safety annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at six words. While efficient per-word, the single-sentence structure is insufficiently sized for the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, mutation operation). No wasted words, but content underweight for contextual needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Critical gaps given no output schema and mutation nature: no description of success return value, no clarification on required fields (schema marks 0/8 as required, which requires explanation), no error conditions, and no behavioral context. Incomplete for an 8-parameter creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each of the 8 parameters (firstName, lastName, email, phone, address, city, state, zip) documented. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond schema, meeting baseline expectations when schema is comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verb 'Create', resource 'customer', and system 'Shopmonkey'. Distinguishes from sibling 'update_customer' and 'get_customer' by action type, but lacks scope details (e.g., whether duplicates are allowed) or differentiation guidance between create vs update operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus 'update_customer' or prerequisites such as checking for existing customers. Does not address the unusual schema constraint that zero parameters are required, leaving ambiguity about minimum data needed to create a valid customer.
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, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention idempotency, error handling (what if IDs don't exist?), return values, or side effects beyond the implied creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is efficiently structured and front-loaded, though extreme brevity leaves significant gaps in specification. No redundant or wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a relational creation tool with 4 parameters. Lacks explanation of entity relationships, status lifecycle, and output behavior despite having no output schema or annotations to provide this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema adequately documents parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific context (e.g., explaining the relationship between customer/vehicle or the status workflow), earning the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verb (Create) and resource (work order) with domain context (Shopmonkey). However, it does not differentiate from sibling creation tools like create_appointment or create_customer, leaving the agent to infer from the resource name alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_order, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., whether customerId and vehicleId refer to existing records) or workflow context.
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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state that this is a read-only/safe operation, does not describe what happens when filters are omitted (likely returns all accessible services), and provides no information about the return format or pagination behavior despite the presence of limit/page parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action, containing no redundant words. However, brevity here comes at the cost of necessary behavioral and contextual details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and the potential confusion with canned services, the description is insufficient. It fails to describe return values, safety characteristics, or the relationship between services and work orders that would help an agent invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema adequately documents all four parameters (orderId, locationId, limit, page). The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, which warrants the baseline score of 3 for high-coverage schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('services'), and scopes it to 'work orders in Shopmonkey' which distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_canned_services'. However, it misses the opportunity to explicitly clarify the difference between actual work order services vs. canned service templates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_canned_service' for templates or 'get_order' for order details), nor does it mention that all parameters are optional or suggest when filtering by orderId is appropriate.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'technicians' which clarifies the user type, but fails to disclose pagination behavior, whether deleted/inactive users are included, permission requirements, or what the response structure looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is front-loaded with the verb, contains no redundancy, and efficiently conveys the resource and source system. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity leaves critical gaps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With zero annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is insufficiently minimal. It should explain the relationship between 'users' and 'technicians', describe expected return values, or clarify pagination behavior. Currently inadequate for proper agent operation without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents locationId, limit, and page. The description adds no parameter-specific context, but with complete schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb (List) and resource (shop users and technicians) from a specific system (Shopmonkey). It distinguishes from siblings like list_customers or list_vehicles by specifying 'users and technicians' as the target resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling get_user, or when to apply the locationId filter versus querying all locations. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It explains what data represents (progression stages) but discloses no API behavior: no mention of idempotency, caching, rate limits, error handling, or return structure. 'List' implies read-only but doesn't confirm safety or scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two front-loaded sentences with minimal redundancy. 'Workflow/pipeline' is slightly redundant, and 'Shows' is weaker than 'Returns,' but overall efficient and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. No structural waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a single-parameter read tool with complete schema coverage. Explains the domain concept (workflow statuses) but misses the location filtering aspect and lacks output description (though no output schema exists to constrain it). Acceptable but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-specific context (doesn't mention locationId or the env var fallback), but the schema adequately documents the single optional parameter without requiring supplementary description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'List' and specific resource 'workflow/pipeline status stages'. The phrase 'progression stages work orders move through' effectively clarifies this returns status taxonomy/metadata rather than actual orders, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_orders. Deducts one point for not explicitly naming the distinction from order-listing tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives. Does not explain typical use cases (e.g., fetching statuses to populate a dropdown filter) or prerequisites (e.g., needing location context). Purely descriptive without prescriptive guidance.
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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies mutation, the description fails to specify whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared (PATCH vs PUT semantics), what the response indicates, or any permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief at five words with no filler. However, given the tool has 9 parameters and no annotations, this brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical behavioral context like partial update semantics, success indicators, and differentiation from related update siblings (update_vehicle, update_order, etc.).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score is 3. The description adds no specific guidance about parameters, such as noting that 'id' is the only required field for identification while others are optional updateable attributes.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('customer's information'), and includes the word 'existing' which helps distinguish this tool from the sibling create_customer. However, it does not specify which fields can be updated, leaving that entirely to the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus create_customer, nor does it clarify that this performs partial updates (only the 'id' is required). No mention of prerequisites like customer existence checks.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. States 'Update fields' implying partial updates but fails to disclose side effects, idempotency, validation rules (e.g., customerId existence checks), or what occurs to unmodified fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at 6 words with action-front-loaded structure. No wasted words, though brevity is excessive given the mutation complexity and lack of annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema requires richer behavioral context. Description fails to address return values, error conditions, or state transition rules (e.g., can status move from 'closed' to 'open'?).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% description coverage, setting baseline at 3. Description adds minimal value beyond schema by only generically referencing 'fields' without explaining parameter relationships or business logic (e.g., changing customerId implications).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('Update') and resource ('existing work order'), with 'existing' distinguishing from create_order. However, lacks explicit differentiation guidance from siblings like update_customer or update_appointment beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when/when-not guidance provided. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., order must exist), partial vs full update semantics, or when to use get_order vs update_order.
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 provided, forcing the description to carry full disclosure burden. However, it reveals nothing about side effects, conflict handling (e.g., double-booked slots), return values, or whether notifications are sent. Only states the basic creation action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with zero redundancy. However, for an 8-parameter creation tool with zero annotations, this brevity may be insufficient rather than optimally concise—it leaves critical context unstated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for complexity level. An 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema requires substantial contextual support (prerequisites, side effects, required relationships). The single-sentence description fails to provide this.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema adequately documents all 8 parameters (customerId, vehicleId, etc.). The description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, but baseline 3 applies per rubric for high-coverage schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Book') with clear resource ('appointment') and context ('Shopmonkey'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_appointment', 'update_appointment', and 'list_appointments' by indicating this is a creation operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus 'update_appointment' or prerequisites (e.g., that customerId/vehicleId likely require existing records). No mention of required fields despite all 8 parameters being technically optional in the schema.
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 provided, so description must carry full behavioral disclosure burden. Fails to disclose: read-only nature (implied but not explicit), error behavior for invalid IDs, rate limits, or what 'detailed information' encompasses. Provides minimal safety/operational context beyond the action verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with no redundant words. Every element earns its place: verb, resource, scope qualifier, and key parameter reference. Appropriately compact for a simple getter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a single-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, but gaps remain given no output schema exists. Description does not hint at return value structure, payload size, or what fields constitute 'detailed information'. Sufficient but minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description references 'by its ID' which aligns with the parameter, but adds no additional semantic context such as ID format constraints, where to obtain valid IDs, or validation rules beyond the schema's basic 'The canned service ID'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('Get'), specific resource ('canned service template'), and scope ('single' + 'by its ID'). Distinguishes implicitly from sibling 'list_canned_services' by emphasizing the singular lookup pattern, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 'by its ID' implies you must have a specific identifier, it does not state when to use this versus 'list_canned_services' for browsing, nor does it mention prerequisites like ID discovery.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. States 'Get' implying read-only safety, but lacks disclosure of error behavior (e.g., 404 if ID not found), return structure, or what 'detailed information' encompasses.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single 11-word sentence with no redundancy. Front-loaded with action verb, every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a low-complexity single-parameter tool, though absence of output schema and annotations leaves gaps around return value structure and error states that a complete description should ideally address.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage (parameter 'id' fully documented), baseline is appropriately met. Description reinforces the ID parameter with 'by its ID', but adds no syntax specifics, format constraints, or examples beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb (Get), resource (inventory part), and scope (single item by ID). The phrase 'by its ID' distinguishes this from the sibling 'list_inventory_parts', though it does not explicitly reference sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'search_parts' or 'list_inventory_parts'. Agents must infer that ID-based lookup is the intended use case.
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 provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. Fails to specify error behavior (e.g., invalid ID), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes 'detailed information'. Only implies read-only access through the verb 'Get'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single efficient sentence with zero redundancy. Information is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple retrieval tool with complete parameter schema. Lacks description of return values and error scenarios (compounded by missing output schema and annotations), but meets minimum viable standards for a single-parameter lookup operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the 'id' parameter fully documented as 'The payment ID'. The description reinforces this with 'by its ID' but adds no additional semantic details, examples, or format constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (Get) and resource (payment), and clarifies scope (single by ID). Implicitly distinguishes from list_payments by specifying 'single' and 'by its ID', though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Lacks explicit when-to-use guidance; only implies an ID is required via 'by its ID'. Does not mention list_payments as the alternative when the payment ID is unknown, nor does it state prerequisites or 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, so the description must carry the full burden. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description lacks details about error behavior (e.g., invalid ID), authentication requirements, or what specific 'detailed information' is returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It immediately communicates the core purpose and required parameter without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it should ideally mention error cases (e.g., vehicle not found) or the nature of the returned details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, the input parameter 'id' is already well-documented as 'The vehicle ID'. The description mentions 'by its ID' which aligns with the parameter usage but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation (Get), resource (vehicle), scope (single), and retrieval method (by ID). The phrase 'single vehicle' effectively distinguishes this from the sibling 'list_vehicles' tool, though it doesn't explicitly name that alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While 'by its ID' implies you need a specific identifier, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'list_vehicles' for searching, or what to do if the ID is unknown. No prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what time clock events represent (clock-in/clock-out) but fails to disclose read-only safety, pagination behavior details, or what the response structure looks like (critical given no output schema exists).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence establishes the action and resource; the second provides domain context. Appropriately front-loaded and sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a filtered list operation with 100% schema coverage, but gaps remain due to the lack of output schema and annotations. The description should ideally specify what data is returned (e.g., timestamps, event types) to compensate for the missing structured output definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic context by mentioning 'technician' and 'shop staff,' which helps clarify the expected values for the userId parameter, but does not elaborate on date format specifics or pagination usage beyond the schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'technician time clock events' and clarifies the domain as 'clock-in/clock-out for shop staff.' It implies differentiation from generic user listing tools (like list_users) by focusing on time-tracking events, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_labor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_labor or get_user. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid locationId) or suggest which filters are most effective for common use cases.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'search and pagination' which adds behavioral context, but omits critical safety information (read-only status), rate limits, and the default behavior for locationId (falling back to env var).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with minimal waste. However, it misses the opportunity to front-load the important locationId default behavior (SHOPMONKEY_LOCATION_ID env var) mentioned in the schema, which is crucial for successful invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It fails to describe return values (necessary without output schema) and omits the env var default for locationId that appears only in the schema description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'search' and 'pagination' which map to the query/limit/page parameters, but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema descriptions—no syntax examples, format constraints, or clarifications on the locationId default behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('List') and resource ('customers from Shopmonkey'), but fails to distinguish from sibling 'get_customer'—it doesn't clarify that 'list' is for searching/filtering multiple records while 'get' retrieves a specific customer by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'get_customer' or 'search_parts'. No mention of prerequisites like authentication or when pagination is necessary.
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, so the description must carry full disclosure burden. While 'List' implies read-only, the description doesn't confirm idempotency, pagination behavior, default sorting, error handling, or rate limits. The mention of 'technician work' adds some behavioral context, but safety/side-effect disclosure is absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, while the second provides use-case context. Appropriate length for the complexity, though could benefit from explicit filtering behavior mention given the optional parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple 4-parameter schema with 100% coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, lacking annotations and behavioral details (pagination, result set size), it falls short of fully preparing an agent for invocation nuances.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by establishing that labor relates to 'technician work on orders,' which helps contextualize the orderId parameter. However, it doesn't explain parameter relationships (e.g., that orderId and locationId can be combined) or validation rules beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (List) and resource (labor line items) from Shopmonkey. The second sentence adds domain context distinguishing 'technician work' from other list operations like services or timeclock entries. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify the distinction between labor line items vs service line items vs timeclock entries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implied usage context ('tracking technician work on orders') suggesting when to use it, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_services, list_timeclock, or get_order. No prerequisites or alternative recommendations 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions filtering and pagination behaviors but lacks safety profile (read-only status), rate limits, error handling details, or specifics about the Shopmonkey API interaction pattern.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no redundancy. However, it could be more informative by front-loading the specific filter types available (by orderId, locationId) rather than the generic 'supports filtering'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 simple parameters and no output schema, the description meets minimum needs by stating the core operation but fails to compensate for the missing output schema by describing what payment data structure or fields are returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so schema descriptions already explain orderId, locationId, limit, and page adequately. The description generically mentions 'filtering' which aligns with the parameters but adds no additional semantic detail, syntax constraints, or cross-parameter dependencies beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (List) and resource (payments from Shopmonkey), and distinguishes from sibling get_payment (single retrieval) implicitly by describing plural listing. However, it does not clarify how payment listing relates to list_orders or when to prefer get_payment for specific lookups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions 'filtering' and 'pagination' capabilities but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_payment for specific records, nor does it state prerequisites like requiring a specific orderId or location context.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. States 'Add' indicating mutation, but fails to disclose side effects (what happens on duplicate VIN?), return values, idempotency, or required fields despite schema marking all as optional.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single 11-word sentence. Front-loaded with action verb. Zero redundancy. Every word earns its place by conveying core operation, target system, and key optional relationship.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, but benefits from 100% param schema coverage. Adequate for basic invocation but gaps remain: no mention of return payload (created object ID?), validation behavior, or conflict resolution.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds 'optionally linked' which reinforces the optional nature of customerId parameter, but otherwise doesn't expand on parameter semantics, formats, or validation rules beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Add' with specific resource 'vehicle' and system context 'Shopmonkey'. Mentions optional customer linking which adds scope detail. Lacks explicit differentiation from sibling 'update_vehicle' (create vs modify).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage context via 'optionally linked to a customer', suggesting when to include customerId. However, lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., 'create customer first') or 'when-not-to-use' guidance versus update_vehicle.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. States 'Get' implying read-only safety, but provides no details on error behavior (e.g., 404 for invalid ID), cache behavior, or what constitutes 'detailed' information beyond the order ID parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single front-loaded sentence of 10 words with zero redundancy. Every word earns its place: verb, resource scope, and key parameter reference.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a single-parameter retrieval tool with complete schema coverage. Acceptable given no output schema exists, though could benefit from noting that the ID must be known (likely from list_orders) and hinting at the data richness expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% description coverage ('The work order ID'), so baseline is met. Description mentions 'by its ID' but adds no additional semantics regarding ID format, constraints, or lookup requirements beyond the schema definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Get' with specific resource 'work order'. Scope qualifiers 'single' and 'by its ID' effectively distinguish this from sibling list_orders, though 'detailed information' is vague about what data is returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implicitly signals ID-based lookup via 'by its ID', distinguishing from list/search siblings. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use list_orders first to find IDs, or error handling if ID is unknown.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses pagination support, but fails to confirm read-only safety, rate limits, or what constitutes a tire object in the return data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action (List tires) followed by behavioral feature (Supports pagination). Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple 3-parameter input with complete schema coverage handles the request side adequately. However, lacking an output schema, the description omits any characterization of the returned tire objects or error conditions, leaving operational gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'List' and clear resource 'tires from Shopmonkey inventory'. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'list_inventory_parts' by specifying 'tires' as the resource, though it doesn't explicitly clarify the domain relationship between tires and parts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus siblings like 'list_inventory_parts' or 'search_parts'. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether locationId is required if env var unset) or exclusion criteria.
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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Search' implies read-only behavior, the description omits pagination behavior details, result format, rate limits, or whether matches are fuzzy/partial vs exact. Does not disclose if the catalog is live inventory or master catalog.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences total. First sentence establishes purpose; second establishes usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler content. Appropriately front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description adequately covers the basic operation but leaves behavioral gaps. For a paginated search tool, some mention of result structure or pagination behavior would improve completeness, though the input schema is well-covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (query, limit, page) fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'name, number, or description' which mirrors the schema's description of the query parameter, adding minimal new semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema documentation is comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific verb (Search) and resource (parts catalog in Shopmonkey). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like 'list_inventory_parts' or 'get_inventory_part', though the term 'Search' implies a catalog lookup distinct from enumeration or exact ID retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States 'Use for finding parts by name, number, or description' which provides implied usage context for when to use fuzzy text matching. Lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., when to use list_inventory_parts instead) or alternative tools.
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 zero annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions pagination behavior, helping the agent understand this handles large datasets. However, it fails to disclose read-only safety, rate limits, or return structure that annotations would typically cover.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences with zero waste. Core purpose front-loaded in first sentence; behavioral trait (pagination) follows. No redundancy with schema or name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple paginated list operation with well-described parameters, but incomplete regarding sibling tool differentiation (search_parts vs list) and behavioral disclosure given lack of annotations and output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% covering all three parameters. The description adds value by contextualizing limit/page as 'pagination' and framing locationId within 'Shopmonkey inventory,' adding business context beyond the technical schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verb (List), resource (parts), and scope (Shopmonkey inventory). The mention of 'Shopmonkey inventory' implicitly distinguishes from search_parts (which may search external catalogs) and get_inventory_part (singular retrieval), though explicit comparison language would strengthen this.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions pagination support but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_parts (advanced/pervasive search) or get_inventory_part (single record lookup). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance.
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 provided, 'Get' implies a safe read-only operation, but the description omits error handling, authorization requirements, and what constitutes 'detailed' information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action verb, no redundancy. Every word earns its place in defining scope and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple single-parameter getter, but given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should ideally specify error behavior or the structure of the 'detailed information' returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter is already well-described. The description mentions 'by their ID' which aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic clarity beyond the schema definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (Get), resource (customer), and scope (single by ID). The 'single' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling list_customers tool, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage context (when you have a specific ID) through 'by their ID', but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer list_customers or error scenarios like 'customer not found'.
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?
Identifies external system (Shopmonkey) and filtering capability. With no annotations, carries burden for safety disclosure but omits read-only status, pagination behavior details, and default return behavior when filters are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences with zero redundancy. Front-loaded action verb and clear scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple list operation with well-documented parameters. However, lacks output description (no output schema exists) and omits pagination behavior explanation despite schema including limit/page parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description mentions the two primary filter parameters (customer ID, location) but adds no semantic depth beyond schema descriptions (e.g., parameter formats, relationships to other tools).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verb (List) + resource (vehicles) + source system (Shopmonkey), distinguishing it from sibling get_vehicle. Could explicitly clarify 'multiple' vs 'single' retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions filtering by customer ID or location, implying use cases. However, fails to explicitly contrast with get_vehicle (single retrieval) or state when to use one over the other.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds the detail that the information is 'detailed,' suggesting comprehensive data return, but lacks disclosure on error behavior (e.g., what happens if ID is invalid), authentication requirements, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence (11 words) that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a simple single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It appropriately clarifies the domain context ('shop') and role equivalence ('user or technician') without over-specifying.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the 'id' parameter fully described as 'The user/technician ID'. The description references the ID ('by their ID'), confirming the parameter's purpose, but does not add syntax constraints, format examples, or validation rules beyond the schema definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (get detailed information), resource (shop user or technician), and scope (single entity by ID). The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes this from the sibling 'list_users', though it does not explicitly name that alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies an ID is required ('by their ID'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this specific retrieval tool versus 'list_users' or 'search_parts'. It states the mechanism but not the selection 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 provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Adds 'detailed information' to distinguish depth from summary listings, but fails to disclose read-only safety (implied but not stated), error behavior if ID invalid, or authorization requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of 9 words. Front-loaded action verb, zero redundancy, every word earns its place. Appropriate length for simple retrieval operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple 1-parameter retrieval tool without output schema. Describes the lookup mechanism and depth of return ('detailed'). Could improve by noting error behavior (e.g., 404 if ID not found) but satisfies core requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with 'id' parameter fully described as 'The appointment ID'. Description mentions 'by its ID' confirming the parameter's identifying purpose, but adds no syntax guidance or validation rules beyond schema. Baseline 3 appropriate for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Excellent clarity: specific verb 'Get', resource 'appointment', and scope 'single appointment by its ID' clearly distinguishes from sibling list_appointments (plural listing) and update_appointment (mutation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implied usage through 'by its ID', signaling this requires a specific identifier rather than browsing. However, lacks explicit contrast with list_appointments alternative or guidance on when to use each (e.g., 'Use this when you have a specific appointment ID; use list_appointments to search broadly').
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 disclosure burden. Adds valuable domain context that these are reusable templates for work orders, indicating their purpose. However, omits behavioral details like pagination limits, caching behavior, or whether results are static/frequently updated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tightly constructed sentences. First sentence establishes action and resource; second sentence adds critical domain context (reusable, for work orders). Zero redundancy, every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately complete for a simple list operation. Explains the business concept ('canned' means pre-built templates), which is essential given the jargon. Lacks output format details, but given no output schema exists and params are well-documented, this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage (locationId, limit, page all documented). Description provides no additional parameter-specific semantics, but with complete schema coverage, baseline score 3 is appropriate as no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Strong specific verb ('List') with clear resource ('pre-built canned service templates'). Effectively distinguishes from sibling 'get_canned_service' (singular vs plural) and from 'list_services' by clarifying these are reusable templates rather than active service records.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implied usage context by stating templates 'can be added to work orders,' suggesting when these are needed. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'list_services' or other alternatives, and includes no 'when not to use' 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 provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. 'List all' implies comprehensiveness but doesn't clarify pagination behavior (despite schema params), return object structure, or permission scoping. Contains no contradictions but limited behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two well-structured sentences with zero waste: first establishes purpose, second provides usage context. Appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple 2-parameter pagination structure and lack of output schema, description adequately covers intent and usage context. Would benefit from describing what fields a location object contains to aid filtering decisions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% description coverage for both pagination parameters, establishing baseline 3. Description adds conceptual context that the output provides IDs for filtering, but doesn't augment parameter syntax or validation rules beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb ('List') + resource ('shop locations') + domain ('Shopmonkey'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_customers or list_orders by specifying the unique resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Excellent context on when to use ('multi-location shops') and concrete purpose ('identify location IDs for filtering other resources'). Lacks only explicit exclusions or alternatives for single-location scenarios.
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 carries the full disclosure burden. It effectively communicates the destructive nature ('permanently', 'cannot be undone') and the safety guard mechanism. Minor gap: does not mention cascading effects on related entities (appointments, payments) or authorization requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded WARNING label immediately signals risk. Each sentence serves distinct purposes: warning, irreversibility disclosure, and execution requirement. Appropriate urgency for a destructive operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the destructive nature and lack of annotations/output schema, the description adequately covers safety-critical aspects (permanence, confirmation). Could be improved by mentioning cascading delete behavior or relationships to sibling tools, but sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'id' and 'confirm'. The description adds procedural emphasis ('You must pass confirm: true to execute') that reinforces the execution requirement beyond the schema's static definition, adding invocation context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the specific action ('Permanently deletes') and resource ('work order'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_order (read), update_order (modify), and create_order (create) through explicit destructive language.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides prerequisite guidance (confirm:true required) and warns about permanence, implying cautious usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use update_order versus delete_order, or when deletion should be avoided in favor of other lifecycle operations.
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:

[![shopmonkey-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AbbottDevelopments/shopmonkey-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AbbottDevelopments/shopmonkey-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![shopmonkey-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AbbottDevelopments/shopmonkey-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AbbottDevelopments/shopmonkey-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/AbbottDevelopments/shopmonkey-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server