PrintVaultMCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with only a few close pairs like add_filament_spool vs quick_add_spool and list_spools vs get_material_spools. Descriptions sufficiently clarify these boundaries, so an agent can usually select the right tool.
Naming Consistency5/5
All 40 tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: list_* for collections, get_* for single items, and create_*/add_*/update_* for mutations. Even longer names like create_tracker_from_github maintain this convention throughout.
Tool Count2/5
With 40 tools, this server far exceeds the 25-tool threshold for being too heavy. While the multiple domains (materials, inventory, printers, projects, trackers) justify some breadth, the sheer volume makes the surface unwieldy and harder for agents to navigate.
Completeness2/5
The surface has significant gaps: there are no delete operations for any entity, no get for materials or spools, no general update for spools beyond weight/status, and no way to unlink a printer from a project or remove a BOM item. These missing operations will cause agent dead ends in common workflows.
Average 4/5 across 40 of 40 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.
This repository is licensed under AGPL 3.0.
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 only says 'Associate' without stating whether the action is idempotent, overwrites existing links, or has side effects. There is no mention of permissions or reversibility.
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 extremely concise with a clean Args block. Every line earns its place, and there is zero waste or redundancy.
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?
The tool is a simple association, but the description lacks critical context such as whether the link replaces existing links, what happens if the printer or project does not exist, or what the response contains. Even with an output schema, the lack of annotations and behavioral details makes it incomplete.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only repeats the schema titles by saying 'The project ID' and 'The printer ID,' which adds minimal value since the parameter names and integer types already imply IDs. No additional constraints or relationships are explained.
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 states 'Associate a printer with a project,' which is a specific verb+resource action. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_printers, update_printer, or list_projects.
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 only defines what the tool does and provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like update_printer or update_project. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are given.
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 implies mutation via 'Update' but does not state whether the update is partial, whether status values are restricted, whether permissions are required, or how printed_quantity is applied (absolute vs incremental). These are material gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core action. The Args section is cleanly structured and each line addresses a parameter without wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a simple update tool.
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?
While the tool has an output schema and is relatively simple, the description omits important context: valid status values, whether both optional fields can be updated together, and the effect of omitting or nulling a parameter. It also gives no usage guidance in a broader workflow, making it incomplete for an agent deciding how to invoke it safely.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate via its Args section. It does define all three parameters (file_id, status, printed_quantity), but the definitions are minimal. 'Status: New status for the file' is tautological, and printed_quantity lacks semantics like whether it replaces or increments the current value.
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 ('Update') and resource ('the print status or printed quantity of a tracker file'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling update tools. It states the exact fields affected, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving usage context entirely implied. Sibling tools like list_trackers or update_spool_weight are not referenced.
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 only states 'Get full details' without mentioning read-only nature, error behavior, authorization requirements, or any side effects. For a simple get operation, this is minimal but insufficient for a well-rounded understanding.
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 description is concise and well-structured, with a single sentence followed by an Args list. It avoids unnecessary wording and front-loads the primary function. The structure is clean, though it is also under-specified in other dimensions, which is not a fault of conciseness itself.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the basic function and parameter identification. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, which are important due to the absence of annotations. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but gaps remain in contextual completeness.
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?
The description adds a brief explanation for item_id as 'The ID of the inventory item,' which clarifies the parameter's role. However, with schema description coverage at 0%, the description provides only minimal semantic value, essentially echoing the parameter name. It is adequate for a single parameter but does not go beyond basic identification.
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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details on a specific inventory item.' This distinguishes it from siblings like search_inventory (searching) and update_inventory_item (updating) by indicating a direct fetch operation by item 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for use beyond the parameter list. There is no reference to sibling tools like search_inventory or get_item_allocation, leaving the agent without explicit decision support.
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, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavior, but it only states 'List all part types/categories in the system,' adding no details about side effects, read-only status, return format, or limitations. The behavior is implied by the verb 'list' but not explicitly disclosed.
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, direct sentence that conveys the tool's purpose with no extraneous information. It is appropriately sized for a simple list 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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema available. The description accurately states the tool's scope ('all ... in the system'), which is sufficient for basic selection and invocation, though it lacks any comparative context.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; the schema is empty.
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' and names the resource 'part types/categories', clearly stating the tool's function. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like list_materials or list_brands, so it falls short of a 5.
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, no exclusions, and no context about selection. The description only states the basic action, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds context that the tool retrieves file list and progress, implying a read-only operation, but it does not mention prerequisites, potential errors (e.g., 404), or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a clear summary sentence and a minimal Args section. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.
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?
For a simple single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return content. It lacks details on error handling or prerequisites, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, the only parameter description is 'tracker_id: The ID of the tracker', which restates the property name without adding meaning, format, or examples.
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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'tracker' and clearly states it returns 'full tracker details including file list and progress'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_trackers' and 'create_tracker_from_github'.
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 such as 'list_trackers' or 'update_file_status'. The description does not mention any exclusions or alternative scenarios.
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, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions location auto-creation and defaults, but omits side effects, error conditions, permission requirements, or reversibility, leaving key behavioral traits undisclosed for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a one-line purpose followed by parameter bullets. Every sentence contributes valuable information without redundancy.
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?
The description covers purpose and all parameters, but lacks explicit usage guidance and deeper behavioral context. Given the output schema exists and no annotations, it is adequate but leaves gaps in when-to-use and side-effect awareness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args section documents every parameter with meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare titles, compensating for 0% schema description coverage. Each parameter gets a clear explanation of its purpose and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool adds new filament spool(s) linked to an existing material blueprint, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling quick_add_spool, which likely serves a similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by requiring an existing material blueprint and noting that locations are created if new. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like quick_add_spool or add_inventory_item.
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 convey behavioral impact. It states the precondition (empty status) but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permissions, or handling of invalid inputs. For a mutation tool, this 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: one sentence for the purpose and one line for the parameter. Information is front-loaded, with no filler or redundant details.
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 an output schema present and a simple single-parameter operation, the description covers the basic action and precondition. However, it omits behavioral details like whether archiving is reversible or what happens to associated data, leaving a notable gap for a mutation tool.
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?
The schema provides only the parameter name and type with no description. The description explains that spool_ids is a list of spool IDs to archive and adds the constraint that they must have 'empty' status, adding meaning beyond the raw 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 uses a specific verb 'archive' with resource 'empty spools', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like mark_spool_empty or open_spool. The 'bulk' qualifier clarifies it operates on multiple spools at once.
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 requirement that spools must have 'empty' status provides a clear precondition, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what happens with non-empty spools. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings like mark_spool_empty.
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, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it fails to clarify whether the tool actually creates a tracker or only simulates/previews. The name says 'create_tracker_from_github' while the description says 'Crawl ... and return the results' for 'preview' purposes, creating ambiguity about side effects. It also doesn't mention any behaviors like rate limiting, authentication, or what counts as 'printable files.'
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 description is concise, containing only two sentences and a parameter explanation. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the mismatch between the tool name (create) and the description (preview) causes redundant cognitive load, slightly reducing efficiency.
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?
While an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete for a tool of this complexity. It doesn't explain what 'printable files' means (e.g., file extensions), nor does it clarify the relationship between this preview crawl and the actual tracker creation implied by the tool name. The purpose and scope remain under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Even though schema coverage is 0%, the description fully explains the only parameter, github_url, by stating it should be a 'Full GitHub URL to a repository or subdirectory' and provides a concrete example. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare string type, making the parameter semantics exceptionally clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Crawl a GitHub repository for printable files and return the results.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings (no other tool mentions GitHub crawling). However, the tool name 'create_tracker_from_github' suggests actual tracker creation, while the description frames it as a preview step, creating slight ambiguity.
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?
The description explicitly says 'Use this to preview files before creating a tracker,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage timing is well-defined. This is more than implied guidance; it's a direct instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' indicates a read-only operation, and the description reveals what data will be returned, but it does not mention potential side effects, authorization requirements, or any special behavior. It adds a little context but not rich 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?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a minimal args section. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.
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?
The tool is simple (single ID parameter) and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. The provided description covers the tool's purpose and parameter adequately for its complexity, though it could mention potential errors or data freshness.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It includes an Args block that describes 'item_id' as 'The ID of the inventory item,' which simply restates the parameter name without adding meaningful detail like where to find it or any format nuances. The description fails to add value 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 clearly states the tool's function: getting the allocation summary for an inventory item, including on-hand quantity, needed quantity, and associated projects. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_inventory_item and get_low_stock.
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 when to use the tool (when you need allocation details for an item), but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. There are no exclusions, but the clarity of the purpose provides reasonable usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists trackers and the search parameter filters by name or GitHub URL, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose details like pagination, search matching behavior (partial vs exact), whether empty search returns all, or the structure of the returned list. Some key behavioral traits are left undisclosed.
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 extremely concise: a single sentence stating the main action plus a brief Args section for the search parameter. Every word earns its place, no fluff, and the key information is front-loaded. This is an example of efficient, well-structured documentation.
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?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the main action and the search semantics. However, it could mention that it returns a list of trackers (though 'list' implies this) or note that it complements get_tracker. Overall, it's adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The input schema only declares a 'search' string with a default of '', providing no semantic description. The description compensates by explaining that search 'Search by tracker name or GitHub URL,' which adds meaningful parameter semantics. This fully clarifies the parameter's purpose, though it doesn't specify case sensitivity or matching rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all print trackers with optional search.' It identifies the specific resource (print trackers) and the operation (list), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_materials or list_projects by naming the resource. The phrase 'all' and 'optional search' further clarify scope, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_tracker.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use when you need to list trackers, optionally filtering by search. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over similar listing tools (e.g., list_materials) or the singular get_tracker. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses one key side effect (clearing the printer assignment) beyond the name's implication, which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks details on reversibility, permissions, or impact on inventory state, leaving the full behavioral profile underspecified.
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, direct sentence followed by an args list. Every element is necessary with no filler, making it efficiently front-loaded.
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?
The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks usage context (e.g., when to mark a spool empty vs. archiving) and does not mention any prerequisites or edge cases, so it is minimally adequate but not rich.
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?
The description explains that spool_id is 'The ID of the spool to mark as empty', giving semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare 'integer' type. Since schema coverage is 0%, this compensation is necessary and sufficient for the single parameter.
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 clearly states the action ('Mark a filament spool as empty') and the additional side effect ('clear its printer assignment'), using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_spool or archive_spools, which have different purposes.
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. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
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, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'dismiss' but does not mention side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what happens after dismissal. For a mutation operation, this is insufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one lead sentence and a clear parameter list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, and it is well-structured.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral side effects, which are partially captured in other dimensions, but overall it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description's Args section is essential. It explains alert_type with examples ('printer_repair', 'low_stock', etc.) and describes alert_id as the ID of the specific alert, adding meaning beyond the bare schema properties.
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 clearly states the tool dismisses a specific dashboard alert, with the verb 'dismiss' and resource 'dashboard alert'. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which include other inventory/project/printer operations but no other alert-dismissal tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by naming the action and parameters but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. There are no sibling tools that do the same thing, so the absence of exclusions is acceptable, but no clear context is given.
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 disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only lists arguments and gives no information about side effects, permissions, idempotency, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a write operation (adding a mod), this lack of transparency leaves critical behavioral unknowns.
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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence followed by a clear, front-loaded argument list. Every line contributes essential information, with no redundancy or filler. It efficiently explains the action and all parameters without unnecessary verbiage.
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?
For a simple add operation, the description covers the action and all parameter meanings well. However, it does not explicitly indicate that 'link' and 'status' are optional (though the schema shows defaults), nor does it explain what the tool returns (output schema exists but is not described). These minor gaps prevent a perfect completeness score, but the core context is adequately conveyed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides a detailed 'Args' section that explains each parameter's meaning and context, e.g., 'printer: The ID of the printer to add the mod to' and 'status: Mod status — Planned, In Progress, Completed'. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema titles and fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, making parameter semantics exceptionally clear.
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 starts with a specific verb 'Add' and clearly defines the resource as 'a mod/upgrade to a printer'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like update_mod (which would modify an existing mod). The one-sentence purpose is direct and sufficiently differentiates the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by using the verb 'Add' (e.g., when you want to add a new mod), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_mod, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but guidance is only implied, not explicitly 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 present, so the description must disclose side effects and behavior. It states the creation action but does not mention return values, whether the operation is idempotent, potential uniqueness constraints on project names, or authorization requirements. This is a mutation tool with minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured, using a short summary followed by a clear argument list. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.
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?
With a simple 6-parameter creation tool and an output schema present, the description covers parameter semantics comprehensively. It lacks deeper context such as success/failure behavior, default handling beyond schema defaults, or relationships to other project operations, but overall is sufficient for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: name, description, status with allowed values, date formats for start_date and due_date, and free-text notes. It adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles.
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 starts with 'Create a new project,' which is a specific verb+resource action. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_projects, get_project, and update_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating a new project, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over update_project or list_projects. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the decision to inference from the tool name.
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 must convey behavioral traits. It correctly signals a read-only listing operation with 'List all physical spools,' but it does not disclose any filtering, sorting, pagination, or whether empty/archived spools are included. This leaves a moderate transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the main purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by a minimal Args section. Every word contributes value without unnecessary length.
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 single required parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for a straightforward list operation. It lacks only explicit usage differentiation and some behavioral details, but these are not critical for a simple per-material listing tool.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explicitly explaining that material_id is 'the ID of the material blueprint,' which adds semantic meaning beyond the raw integer type. However, it does not explain how to obtain that 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?
The description states 'List all physical spools for a given material blueprint,' which clearly identifies the verb (list), resource (physical spools), and scope (per material blueprint). It implicitly differentiates from the more generic sibling list_spools by being material-scoped, 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for a given material blueprint' establishes the clear context for when to use the tool. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or mention of alternatives, but the material-scoped wording sufficiently implies the intended usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the searchable fields and allowed statuses, which adds some transparency. However, it does not mention pagination, sorting, default behavior when no filters are provided, or whether archived/hidden projects are included. For a simple list operation, this is acceptable but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with one sentence for the purpose and a clean, bullet-like listing of arguments. Every sentence earns its place, and it is well-structured for quick scanning by an agent.
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 existence of an output schema (not shown) and the simplicity of the tool, the description is largely complete. It covers the action and all parameters. However, the lack of annotations and absence of any mention of default behaviors (e.g., returns all projects if no filters) slightly reduces completeness. Still, it is adequate for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions coverage (0%), and the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'search' is clearly defined as searching across name, description, status, or notes; 'status' lists all allowed values. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults.
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 clearly states 'List projects' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions optional search and status filter, giving clear scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_materials or list_brands, which refer to different resources.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where another tool (e.g., get_project) would be more appropriate. The usage is only implied by the name and description.
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 are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and listing the included components gives some idea of the response scope. However, it does not mention potential prerequisites (e.g., project existence), error behavior, or any special access requirements, which would be helpful for such a tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence outlining the tool's purpose and a short Args section for the parameter. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, with no redundant or filler text.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description adequately covers the main functionality and parameter meaning. It could be enhanced with usage guidelines or notes on error handling, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has only one parameter (project_id) with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description includes an Args block explaining 'project_id: The ID of the project.' This adds basic meaning beyond the property name, but it is minimal and does not elaborate on formats, constraints, or relationship to other entities.
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 clearly states 'Get full project details including BOM, linked inventory, printers, trackers, and files.' This specifies the verb (get), the resource (a project), and the scope (full details), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_projects and get_dashboard.
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?
The description implies usage: when you need comprehensive project information including BOM, inventory, printers, trackers, and files. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the context is clear that this is for retrieving a single project by ID rather than listing all projects.
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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what each filter does (exact matches on brand, part_type, location) and that query is free-text, but it does not disclose behavior such as pagination, result limits, or how multiple filters combine (AND vs OR). It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but the behavioral information is basic.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a single clear purpose sentence followed by a compact argument list. Every line provides useful information without redundancy or unnecessary prose. The information is front-loaded with the main action and then detailed parameters.
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 tool's moderate complexity (4 optional filters, no required parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all parameters clearly and states the search scope. It does not cover edge cases like empty query behavior or pagination, but these are not critical for a search tool and the output schema likely handles return value documentation. It is adequately complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only property names and types, with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by explaining each parameter's semantics: query as free-text across fields, and brand/part_type/location as exact matches on corresponding fields. This adds significant value beyond the schema, though it could further clarify default behavior when query is empty.
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 clearly states the action ('Search inventory items') and specifies the search criteria ('by keyword, brand, part type, or location'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_materials (lists all materials) and get_inventory_item (retrieves a specific item), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when searching inventory by keyword or filters) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it (e.g., when you need a specific item by ID, use get_inventory_item). The usage context is present but lacks exclusions or alternative 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, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the max-5-favorites constraint, which is useful, but does not mention what happens when that limit is reached, whether the material must exist, or any side effects beyond toggling. This is adequate but lacks depth.
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 extremely concise, with the main action and constraint in one sentence, followed by a standard Args section. No wasted words, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, explicit output schema), the description is mostly complete. It conveys the core action and the critical max-5 constraint. It could mention behavior on limit violations or prerequisites, but for a toggle operation this is sufficient.
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?
The schema already defines material_id as an integer, and the description repeats it as 'The ID of the material blueprint.' This adds no new semantic information beyond a slightly more human-readable phrasing, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.
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 clearly states the action ('Toggle the favorite status') and the specific resource ('a material blueprint'), along with a notable constraint ('max 5 favorites'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_materials or create_material, which have different purposes.
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?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for toggling a favorite status, which is an action without a sibling alternative. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus other material-related tools or any prerequisites, falling short of an explicit exclusion or alternative.
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. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation, but no additional behavior (e.g., pagination, ordering, permission requirements) is disclosed. It is minimally adequate but not rich.
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, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the scope ('in the system') and the resource ('brands/manufacturers'), which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameters to document. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly does not try to invent parameter details.
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 clearly states the tool's action ('List') and resource ('all brands/manufacturers in the system'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_materials or list_projects by naming the specific entity.
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 phrase 'in the system' implies it returns a global list, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it. The context is implied rather than stated.
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 are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It states the operation returns all storage locations in the system, which is useful scope info. However, it does not mention any behavioral details such as ordering, pagination, or response format—though the output schema may cover some of this.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence directly states the tool's function with no wasted words. It is concise and well-structured for an agent to quickly parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool takes no parameters and has an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The scope ('all storage locations') is sufficient to distinguish it from sibling list tools.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description adds no conflicting or extraneous parameter information.
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 ('List') and resource ('storage locations') with an explicit scope ('all...in the system'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_materials and list_brands.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage—when you need all storage locations—but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. Since the resource is distinct from siblings, the intended use is reasonably clear, but no usage boundary is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only listing behavior and the filtering capabilities, which is helpful. It does not mention pagination, authentication, or potential rate limits, but for a simple list operation this is acceptable. The behavior is transparent enough for an agent to understand it is a non-destructive read.
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 compact and well-structured: one clear purpose line followed by a succinct args list. Each argument is explained in a single line with no redundant content, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
The description covers the core purpose and all three parameters, and the presence of an output schema handles return value details. It does not discuss edge cases like empty results or authentication, but for a straightforward list tool with optional filters, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully documents each parameter: search by material or brand name, material_type with allowed values 'generic' or 'blueprint', and favorites as a boolean filter. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema property definitions and clarifies the expected values.
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 starts with a specific verb 'List' and clearly defines the resource as 'filament material blueprints and generic material types'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_spools or list_brands, making the tool's purpose immediately obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to view material definitions, and the parameter explanations (search, material_type, favorites) provide context on how to filter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related tools like list_spools or create_material, so guidance on when to use this versus alternatives is only implied, not stated.
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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (listing printers) and describes filter options, which is sufficient for a read-only list operation. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or return format nuances, though these are minimal for this tool. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the search scope and status examples.
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 compact and front-loaded, using two sentences plus an Args block. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no unnecessary fluff. The structure is clear and easily scannable.
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 simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the operation and parameters, and the output is understood via the schema. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but these are minor gaps for a list operation. The description could be slightly richer by mentioning that it returns all printers when no filters are applied, but the 'List all printers' wording already covers this.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by providing clear semantics for both parameters: 'search: Search by title, manufacturer, serial number, or notes' and 'status: Filter by status (e.g. 'Active', 'Under Repair', 'Retired').' This adds meaningful meaning beyond the bare parameter names.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List all printers with optional search and status filter.' It uses a specific verb 'List' and specifies the resource 'printers,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_materials and get_printer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (e.g., listing all printers vs. getting a single printer with get_printer) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The optional search and status filter suggest flexibility, but no direct comparison to siblings is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by stating 'Only the fields you provide will be changed' and enumerating the allowed status values. However, it does not disclose permissions, side effects, error handling, or behavior for invalid mod_id.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear parameter list. No redundant 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?
For a simple update tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (partial update, parameter meanings, status enum). It lacks some edge-case context but is complete enough given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: 'mod_id' is defined as the ID of the mod, 'name' as new name, 'link' as URL, and 'status' with explicit allowed values. This goes far beyond the schema's bare property names.
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 clearly states 'Update a printer mod', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_mod and update_printer by explicitly targeting mods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you need to update a mod) and notes 'Only the fields you provide will be changed', but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or list exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses partial update behavior and specifies allowed status values and date formats, adding value over the schema. However, it does not mention permission requirements, error behavior, or handling of null values, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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 succinct, front-loaded with the action, and uses a clear Args list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
With an output schema present to document return values, the description covers all parameters and key constraints. It lacks some context like prerequisites or error scenarios, but overall it's sufficiently complete for a focused update tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section explains every parameter, providing meaningful details like status allowed values, date formats, and clarifying project_id as the identifier. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update a project' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_project, get_project, and list_projects. The additional note 'Only the fields you provide will be changed' further clarifies the tool's partial update behavior.
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 use for updating existing projects but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like create_project or get_project. The partial update semantics are a useful usage note, but no exclusions or alternative mentions exist.
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 are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait: 'Auto-updates status based on remaining weight.' However, it does not explain the status values, whether the operation is reversible, or any permission requirements. This is partial transparency but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a single clear purpose statement, a note about auto-update, and a compact Args block. No filler or redundancy; every sentence contributes useful information.
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?
For a simple two-parameter update tool, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and the key side-effect. It does not detail the output, but an output schema exists, so that is not required. The main gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance (when vs. alternatives), but overall it is nearly complete for this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While the schema itself lacks descriptions, the tool description provides explicit explanations for both parameters: spool_id as 'The ID of the spool to update' and current_weight as 'The current net filament weight in grams.' This adds units and purpose beyond the raw schema, fully compensating for the 0% 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?
The description clearly states the action: 'Update the current weight of an opened filament spool.' It specifies the resource (spool weight), context (opened spool), and includes the side-effect of auto-updating status. This distinguishes it from siblings like open_spool and mark_spool_empty.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('opened filament spool') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mark_spool_empty or open_spool. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites beyond the word 'opened.'
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 are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose what the response contains (mods, assigned filament), but it does not mention error handling, read-only implications, or permission requirements. The name implies a read operation, but the description adds limited behavioral context beyond that.
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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one for the parameter. No filler or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose and parameter sufficiently. A slight improvement would be referencing list_printers for obtaining printer_id, but this is not essential 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?
The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It defines 'printer_id' as 'The ID of the printer', adding semantic meaning that the schema alone lacks. This is helpful, though it does not specify how to obtain the ID (e.g., via list_printers).
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details on a specific printer'), and even specifies the details include mods and assigned filament. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_printers' (listing all) and 'update_printer' (modifying).
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?
The context is clear: use this tool when needing full details for a single printer. The modifier 'specific' implies it is not for listing all printers, but no explicit alternative is named. This provides good situational guidance without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying behavioral traits. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and adds context about consolidation and active-project scope. It does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., empty list, status of completed projects) but the output schema mitigates the need for return-format disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Get the consolidated shopping list — items that need to be purchased across all active projects.' Every word adds meaningful context without waste or redundancy.
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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations), the description adequately covers its purpose and scope. The presence of an output schema covers return-value details. It could have elaborated on what qualifies as 'active projects,' but the description is sufficiently complete for practical use, earning a solid score.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema already reflects this with an empty properties object. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, which is appropriate here.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the consolidated shopping list' with a specific scope ('items that need to be purchased across all active projects'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_materials or get_low_stock by emphasizing aggregation across projects.
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 the primary use case—retrieving a cross-project shopping list—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_materials or get_low_stock. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral info. It discloses side effects such as creating a new brand or location if new. It also includes default values. However, it doesn't mention other side effects (e.g., whether duplicates are prevented, whether quantity creates multiple spool records) or any required permissions. Still, it provides meaningful transparency beyond just stating the 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?
The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, then follows a structured Args list. Given the large number of parameters, the length is justified and every line provides value. It could omit minor redundancies, but overall it is efficient and well-organized.
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?
The tool has 15 parameters and no helpful annotations, yet the description covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, and details every parameter. It also mentions side effects and defaults. With an output schema present, return value details are not needed. The only missing context is deeper edge-case behavior, but for this complexity the description is highly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully by explaining every one of the 15 parameters with examples, defaults, and units where relevant. It goes beyond the schema by clarifying how to obtain material type IDs and what values look like. This is exceptional parameter documentation.
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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Quick-add a filament spool'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from alternatives by emphasizing 'without a material blueprint' and contrasts it with the full setup workflow. This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when you just want to track a spool without setting up a full material blueprint first.' It also gives practical cross-referencing guidance (e.g., use list_materials to find material type IDs). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like add_filament_spool, but the context implies a lighter-weight option.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the non-destructive partial-update behavior and the side effect that a new manufacturer will be created if needed. It does not mention permissions or return behavior, but the key behavioral traits are surfaced.
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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by an args list. Every line provides necessary information without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 tool has 8 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all parameters and the key partial-update behavior, which is sufficient for correct invocation. It lacks explicit error scenarios or return-value details, but those are not essential when an output schema exists.
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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description manually explains all eight parameters with meaningful context, including examples for status and a side-effect note for manufacturer. Some entries like 'Serial number' merely restate the parameter name, but overall it adds substantial value beyond the bare schema titles.
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 clearly specifies the action ('Update') and the resource ('a printer record'), with an explicit statement that only provided fields are changed, distinguishing this partial-update tool from a full-replacement update. It stands out among sibling update tools by naming the printer resource directly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating this is for updating a printer record, and the partial-update semantics are clear ('Only the fields you provide will be changed'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving room for more guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key side effect of stock reservation when linked to inventory and explains status semantics. However, it omits details about error conditions, permissions, or reversibility, which would make it more transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear opening sentence and a bullet-like Args list. Every line provides necessary information, avoiding unnecessary fluff.
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 tool's moderate complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the operation and side effects. However, it lacks information on error scenarios, prerequisites, or potential impacts on related data, which would enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the Args section explains each parameter, including status options and inventory_item's stock reservation effect. This adds meaning well beyond the schema's minimal field names and types.
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 clearly states 'Add a Bill of Materials line item to a project', using a specific verb and resource. It also notes stock reservation when linked to inventory item, distinguishing it from list-only siblings like list_materials.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for adding BOM items via its purpose but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use it or preferred alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the description adds context about the aggregated nature of the response, but it does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior or any operational constraints (e.g., freshness, auth). For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and then lists the components in a scannable, comma-separated format. Every word earns its place with zero filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the scope by listing the main content areas. It does not need to explain return values or parameters, and the zero-parameter nature makes this complete for an aggregation endpoint.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the empty schema already covers everything. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description has no parameter semantics to add.
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 ('Get') and resource ('full status overview of your Print Vault') and enumerates the exact contents (alerts, stats, featured trackers, active projects). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/get tools, which target individual resources.
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?
The description implies the tool is used when a consolidated overview is needed, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over calling individual list_* or get_* endpoints, nor does it give exclusions. Sibling tools exist, but no 'when not to use' is stated.
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 are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the action but does not disclose any additional behavior (e.g., network usage, caching). However, for a simple version check, the description is not misleading and covers the core behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is trivial with zero parameters and an output schema present. The description fully covers the tool's purpose, and the output schema handles return-value details, so the description is complete for the agent's needs.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, as there are none to explain.
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 ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('current Print Vault version'). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which relate to version retrieval.
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?
The description provides clear context: use this tool to get the current version. Since no sibling tool overlaps with this functionality, there are no alternatives or exclusions to mention, making this sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It provides useful behavioral details like the meaning of is_archived (show only archived vs exclude archived) and that color does fuzzy matching. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose default behavior when is_archived is null (e.g., whether archived spools are shown by default). Side effects are not mentioned, though a list operation likely has none.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: one sentence states the purpose, followed by a bullet-list of parameters, each explained in a single line. No filler words or redundant schema repetition. Every sentence adds value.
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 a tool with 4 optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the core behavior and all parameters meaningfully. It lacks only minor details like the default behavior when is_archived is not provided, and whether filters are AND-combined. These are small gaps, so the description is mostly complete for practical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only types and defaults (string/integer/boolean, null), with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds substantial meaning: enumerates valid status values, clarifies printer filter is by ID, specifies color is a fuzzy match, and explains the two branches of is_archived. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'List filament spools with optional filtering' – a specific verb, resource, and scope that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_materials or get_material_spools. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately concrete.
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?
It clearly states the tool is for listing filament spools with optional filters, giving a clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., for spools tied to a specific material, use get_material_spools), but the purpose itself is distinct enough that the lack of explicit alternatives is not a major gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects. The phrase 'all vendors/suppliers in the system' transparently states the scope of the returned data, though it does not mention edge cases like archived or inactive vendors.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the essential purpose and scope immediately, which is ideal for a no-parameter list tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It states the full scope of the operation ('all vendors/suppliers in the system'), and no additional details about return values or filtering are necessary.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter detail.
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 clearly identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('all vendors/suppliers') with explicit scope ('in the system'). The resource is distinct from sibling listing tools like list_materials and list_brands, so an agent can easily select this tool for vendor/supplier data.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb and resource: use when you need the full list of vendors/suppliers. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to related list tools, but the resource name is sufficient for basic selection.
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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that a new individual spool record is created and that status can be 'opened' or 'in_use', plus optional location/printer assignment. It does not mention whether the original batch is consumed or other side effects, which is a gap.
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 compact: two sentences of purpose followed by a clean Args list. It is front-loaded and has no filler; every sentence 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?
With an output schema present and all parameters described, the core usage is covered. The only missing piece is side-effect behavior on the source batch and explicit usage boundaries, but for a straightforward create-style action it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description documents every parameter (spool_id, status, location_id, printer_id) with role-specific meaning, including allowed status values and optional assignment semantics. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Open') with a resource ('spool from an unopened batch') and states the expected effect ('Creates a new individual spool record'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_spools or add_filament_spool.
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?
It clearly frames the context ('from an unopened batch') and the action creates an individual spool, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key side effects (auto-creation of brand/part type/location/vendor) and parameter-specific behaviors (low stock tracking only for consumables). This is substantial behavioral context, though it omits details like error handling or return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a brief intro followed by a compact Args list. Every line adds value, and the length is appropriate given the parameter count.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 12-parameter create operation with no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers action, side effects, and all parameters, while relying on the output schema for return format. It doesn't discuss permissions, but that's a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 12 parameters are explained in the Args section, providing semantics beyond the schema's bare names. For example, 'is_consumable' clarifies it enables low stock tracking, and 'low_stock_threshold' is specified as consumables-only. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description 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?
The description clearly identifies the operation as adding a new inventory item with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update/search tools, but the action is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description establishes clear context for creating a new inventory item and notes that related entities are auto-created, which informs decision-making. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as using update_inventory_item for existing items.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals key behavioral side effects not evident from the schema: brand 'will be created if new', features 'Created if new', and vendor 'will be created if new'. It also explains parameter-specific behavior like 'Ignored for generics' for brand. Since no annotations exist, this disclosure is crucial and largely sufficient, though it doesn't address idempotency or error handling.
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 description is longer than average but appropriate for 19 parameters. It is front-loaded with a clear purpose statement and organizes parameters in a list with one-line explanations. No filler; every sentence adds information, though it could be slightly more compact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex create operation with no annotations and 19 parameters, the description provides complete contextual coverage: conceptual model (generic vs blueprint), ordering requirements, units, auto-create behaviors, and default values. The presence of an output schema means return-value documentation isn't needed, and all other critical aspects are covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description independently documents all 19 parameters in an Args section. It adds units ('mm', 'grams', 'Celsius', 'g/cm3'), default values (1.75, 1000), and relational semantics (base_material_id references a generic material). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new material' and immediately distinguishes generic vs blueprint with concrete examples. The specific verb 'create' and resource 'material' are unambiguous, and the subtype explanation differentiates it from sibling tools like list_materials or add_filament_spool.
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?
It gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Create a generic first, then blueprints that reference it via base_material_id.' This tells the agent when to create a generic vs a blueprint. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the context is clear for the material creation workflow.
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the filter condition adds specific context about what items are returned. It doesn't cover edge cases (e.g., items with no threshold), but for a simple listing tool this is adequate.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no wasted words. It is concise and directly conveys the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no nested objects), the description fully covers its purpose and behavior. An output schema exists, so the return format is handled elsewhere; no additional context is necessary.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics.
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 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'consumable inventory items' with a precise filter condition ('at or below their low stock threshold'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_materials or search_inventory, which serve broader or different purposes.
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?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool—for querying consumable inventory items with low stock—but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Since the sibling list includes other inventory tools, the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over list_materials or search_inventory without additional guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the critical partial-update behavior and the side effect that brand, part_type, location, and vendor are auto-created if new. This is rich behavioral context beyond simple mutability.
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 opens with a clear one-sentence summary, then uses a structured 'Args:' list. For 13 parameters, the length is justified, and each line provides necessary semantics with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count and absence of annotations, the description covers purpose, update semantics, side effects, and parameter meanings. The output schema exists to explain return values, so the description need not detail them. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 13 parameters with concise, meaningful explanations (e.g., 'brand: Brand name (will be created if new)'), adding value beyond the schema's type information.
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 starts with 'Update an existing inventory item', using a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('inventory item') while explicitly stating 'existing'. This clearly distinguishes it from creation (add_inventory_item) and retrieval (get_inventory_item) tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by saying 'Update an existing inventory item' and explains the partial-update behavior ('Only the fields you provide will be changed'), giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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:

[![PrintVault_MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BrandonDoster/PrintVault_MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BrandonDoster/PrintVault_MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![PrintVault_MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BrandonDoster/PrintVault_MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BrandonDoster/PrintVault_MCP)

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/BrandonDoster/PrintVault_MCP'

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