wisp-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.4.1
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool targets a distinct operation or resource: file reads/writes/deletes, backups, databases, power, console, settings, etc. Even closely related file tools (read_file, read_file_chunk, read_log_tail, find_in_file) have clearly different purposes, so an agent can reliably select the right one.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_servers, create_backup, delete_file). A few nouns stand alone (capabilities, server_details, server_status, audit_logs, file_fingerprint, backup_download), which is a minor but noticeable deviation from the predominant style.
Tool Count2/5
With 35 tools, the set is well beyond the 25+ threshold and feels heavy. While the server covers multiple domains (files, backups, databases, console, settings), the sheer number of tools makes it more complex to navigate than a typical MCP server, and many could be consolidated or exposed via subcommands.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface is comprehensive for server management: CRUD for files, backups, databases, plus power, console, monitoring, and settings. A few gaps exist (no server creation/deletion, no user/permission management), but these are likely outside the intended read-only or operational scope.
Average 3.3/5 across 35 of 35 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 20 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 15, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as what the download response contains, whether it streams data, or if authentication is required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, making it very brief. However, it is under-specified rather than concisely informative, so it does not earn high marks for structure.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values, but it doesn't. It also leaves parameter semantics undefined and fails to clarify the tool's overall behavior, making it incomplete even for a simple two-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or purpose of backup_id or server_id. It fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description references 'download response for a backup', which conveys a backup download intent, but the verb 'request the panel's download response' is vague and doesn't clearly specify the actual action (e.g., download file, get URL). It is not a tautology but lacks precision.
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 relative to sibling tools like list_backups, deploy_backup, or delete_backup. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative mentions are present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the permission requirement (file-write access) which is useful, but it does not explain the destination of the copy, overwrite behavior, or any other side effects. The phrase 'in place' is confusing and adds little transparency beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, with no redundancy. However, it is so brief that it omits essential details, and the structure does not help clarify what 'in place' means or how the tool behaves.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify how the copy destination is determined and how server_id is used. Sibling tools like rename_file and write_file are not distinguished, making the description incomplete for an agent choosing among file operations.
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?
The description mentions neither 'path' nor 'server_id'. With 0% schema coverage, the parameter names must carry all meaning. 'Server_id' is particularly unclear—it could identify a target server, but its role in copying a file is not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'copy' and the resource 'file', giving a basic purpose. However, 'in place' is ambiguous and the description does not distinguish copy_file from sibling tools like rename_file or write_file.
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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rename_file or write_file. The only contextual hint is the permission requirement, which does not clarify usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description contradicts the annotations: 'Toggle' implies a non-idempotent state flip, but the annotation declares idempotentHint=true. It adds a permission requirement but fails to describe the actual behavioral effect (what enabling/disabling support access does) beyond what the minimal annotation set implies.
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 two concise sentences with no filler. Both sentences add value: the first states the action and target, and the second provides a prerequisite. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation, destructive hint, one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'support access' means, what the effect of toggling is, or what the server_id parameter represents, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate correctly.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for parameter semantics, but it does not mention the single 'server_id' parameter at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the null default and behavior are unexplained, leaving the agent uncertain about the target server scope.
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 verb 'Toggle' with the resource 'provider support access,' which clearly indicates the action and target. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'toggle_monitoring' by specifying 'support access' rather than monitoring.
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 provides a prerequisite ('Requires server-settings access') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, alternative tools, or specific scenarios where toggling support access is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description merely restates the action and does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or failure modes beyond what the annotations already indicate (readOnly=false). No additional behavioral context is provided.
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 a single concise sentence that conveys the primary purpose without superfluous text, though it lacks substance. The phrasing is efficient but under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is severely incomplete for a tool with four parameters and no output schema. It does not describe the required inputs, expected result, or any prerequisites beyond API support, leaving the agent without essential information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameters, but it does not mention name, host, server_id, or connections_from. The agent must infer their meanings solely from parameter names, which is insufficient.
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 'Create' and the resource 'database', clearly distinguishing it from sibling database tools like list_databases and delete_database. The conditional clause about Wisp Client API adds context without obscuring the core purpose.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, aside from the precondition about API support. It does not mention using list_databases to verify existing databases or any fallback options.
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 adds permission requirements ('file-write' and 'destructive access') beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It doesn't disclose additional consequences like irreversibility or failure modes, but annotations already cover the destructive nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose. It is concise and easy to parse, though it may be too terse for the information needed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deletion tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description misses critical details: parameter semantics, usage scenarios, and behavior on failure. It is minimally adequate only in stating the action and permission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the 'path' or 'server_id' parameters. Agents must infer their meaning solely from parameter names, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and object (file), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_backup or delete_database. However, it adds minimal detail beyond the name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states a permission requirement, not scenarios, exclusions, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly does not contradict them. It adds the useful permission context 'Requires file-write access,' but it does not describe what happens to original files, where the archive goes, or how parameters like `to` and `server_id` affect behavior.
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 very concise and front-loaded, with two short sentences serving distinct purposes: stating the action and noting a prerequisite. It is efficient, though it could be slightly expanded to cover key parameter semantics without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and all-false annotations, the description must carry more weight. It lacks details about return values, archive format, behavior with multiple paths, and the role of `to`/`server_id`, making it under-specified for a tool with three parameters.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only implies that `paths` are the files to compress. It does not clarify the meaning of `to` (likely destination) or `server_id` (which server), failing to compensate for the schema's lack of explanations.
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 'Compress' with the resource 'server files,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like decompress_archive and other file operations. However, it omits scope details such as destination or archive format, keeping it from being fully specific.
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, only stating the prerequisite 'Requires file-write access.' It does not mention when compression is appropriate or point to the inverse operation decompress_archive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and not read-only, providing the safety profile. The description adds the requirement for file-write access, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose overwrite behavior, output locations, or other 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 two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a single high-value prerequisite. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, 0% schema parameter coverage, and a sparse description, the tool remains under-contextualized. It lacks explanations of return values, edge cases, or parameter semantics, which the description should provide given the absence of structured field descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description makes no mention of the parameters (path, server_id). The description does not compensate for the lack of schema details, leaving server_id unexplained and path only implicitly understandable from the tool name.
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 'Decompress an archive' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It is not merely a tautology of the name, but it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like compress_files or read_file beyond the opposite semantics.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states a prerequisite (file-write access) and does not mention contexts, exclusions, or related tools such as compress_files.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, so the description adds limited value by mentioning 'Requires destructive access.' It does add the 'backup access' requirement, but doesn't explain the operational impact of a restore (e.g., overwriting existing data), which would be useful for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler. Every word earns its place, though the second sentence is a prerequisite note rather than elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive restore tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't mention the optional server_id, the effect on the target server, what 'restore' means in this context, or what the outcome looks like. The agent would need to infer too much.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no meaning for backup_id or server_id. It fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to guess what these fields represent and how they relate to the restore action.
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 a clear action ('Restore a backup') with a specific resource, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_backup or backup_download. However, it omits that this is a server deployment action and lacks explicit differentiation from alternatives.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like backup_download or create_backup. The only usage hint is the prerequisite 'Requires backup and destructive access,' which is a permission note, not a contextual scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description directly contradicts the idempotentHint annotation. The verb 'toggle' implies flipping a state, which is inherently non-idempotent (calling twice returns to original), while the annotation marks the operation as idempotent. No effects are 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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a short prerequisite. Every word earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the contradiction between the description and the idempotent annotation, and the lack of any explanation about what 'monitoring' means or what happens after toggling, the description is seriously incomplete for a tool with no output schema and no parameter guidance.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and the description omitting any mention of the server_id parameter, the agent receives no explanation of the parameter's role, the default null, or the effect of omitting it. The parameter name is self-explanatory but the description adds no 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 clearly states the action ('Toggle') and the specific resource ('Wisp server monitoring'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like toggle_support_access. The purpose is immediately understandable.
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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires server-settings access') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion scenarios. Usage is implied but not explicitly directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive and idempotent hints. Description adds 'Requires file-write access' and confirms overwrite behavior. However, it doesn't explain what happens to existing files beyond overwrite, whether directories are created, or any limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive, multi-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, this is insufficient. Missing return behavior, error handling, path interpretation, server_id usage, and differentiation from safe_write_file.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are 0% and the description adds no explanation of path, content, or server_id. Path and server_id semantics are ambiguous. The description provides no parameter guidance.
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?
Clearly states 'Create or overwrite a text file' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling safe_write_file, which likely serves a similar purpose with extra safety checks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. There is a 'safe_write_file' sibling that may be a safer alternative, but the description doesn't mention it. Only notes a permission prerequisite, not 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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the requirement for database and destructive access, which is a permission prerequisite rather than behavioral detail. It does not disclose consequences like invalidating existing sessions or the need to update client configurations, but it does not contradict annotations and reinforces the destructive nature.
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 a single concise sentence with the action front-loaded, making it easy to scan. However, it is arguably too sparse, omitting details that could be included without much length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with two parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, this description is insufficient. It lacks guidance on when rotation is appropriate, what parameters mean, and what side effects will occur, making it difficult for an agent to invoke correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain either parameter. It mentions 'database' but does not clarify that database_id is required and that server_id is an optional qualifier. No additional semantic meaning is provided beyond the 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 uses a specific verb 'rotate' and identifies the resource 'database password,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_database, delete_database, and list_databases. It is unambiguous about what operation is performed.
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 states requirements (database and destructive access) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond permissions. For example, it doesn't mention that this should be used for credential rotation or what happens to existing connections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is already known. The description adds the access requirement ('Requires backup access') but fails to disclose other traits such as side effects, storage behavior, or return value. Given the annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation, the added context is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, substantive, and front-loaded. It consists of two short sentences with no filler, making it easy to parse and act on.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining the tool. It omits parameter semantics, result format, and any operational nuances, making it incomplete for a 2-parameter creation tool. The existence of sibling tools also highlights the need for clearer scoping.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter (name or server_id). The agent is left without any guidance on what 'name' should be or how 'server_id' affects the backup, making the description entirely unhelpful for parameter use.
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 'Create a server backup' clearly states the action and resource, and the verb 'create' distinguishes it from sibling backup tools like list_backups, delete_backup, and deploy_backup. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope details, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
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 a backup needs to be created and notes the prerequisite 'Requires backup access.' It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., deploy_backup, delete_backup), nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds a permission requirement ('Requires file-write access'), which is extra context, but it does not disclose behavior like handling existing directories or parent path creation.
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 two short sentences with no fluff. Each sentence contributes distinct information: the action and the access requirement, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and zero schema documentation, the description should cover key usage details. It omits any mention of path resolution, server_id usage, or error/success behavior, leaving an agent uncertain about invocation despite the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter details. It does not explain what 'path' refers to or how 'server_id' affects the operation, leaving the agent without essential 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 clearly states the action ('Create a directory') with a specific verb and resource, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_directory and delete_file based on the action itself.
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 write_file or copy_file. The only contextual hint is the permission requirement, not usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small behavioral detail about the include parameter's allowed values, but does not disclose behavior regarding missing server_id or response format. This is acceptable given the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, no redundant words. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second gives the only useful additional detail. Perfectly concise.
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 no output schema and only two simple parameters, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks some context: what server_id selects, whether it is optional, and what the return structure looks like. For a simple metadata getter with strong annotations, this is adequate but not outstanding.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'include may contain node, egg, allocations, or features,' which clarifies valid values for the include parameter. However, server_id is left entirely undocumented, and the description does not explain the relationship between the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb+resource ('Get server metadata') and specifies the optional include fields (node, egg, allocations, features). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like server_status or list_servers, which could be interpreted as similar metadata access.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use server_details versus alternatives. The include hint is parameter-focused, not usage-focused. There is no mention of 'use for full metadata' or 'see server_status for quick status'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the requirement of 'server-settings' access, which is useful. However, beyond the annotation-confirmed destructive nature, it does not describe side effects (e.g., downtime, version changes) or reversibility, so only partial additional transparency is provided.
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 two short sentences (12 words) and front-loads the core action first. Every word earns its place, and the access requirement is conveyed efficiently without 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?
For a destructive tool with no output schema and minimal parameters, the description is incomplete. It omits return value information, practical effects on the server, and meaning of the 'beta' flag. Given the destructive nature (per annotation), more context is needed to guide safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter information. Neither 'beta' nor 'server_id' is explained, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from defaults and types alone. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Run the Wisp egg update action.' It uses a specific verb ('Run') and identifies the resource ('Wisp egg update'). While 'egg update' is domain-specific jargon, it distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like server_status or send_console_command.
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 (updating a server's egg) and states prerequisites ('Requires server-settings and destructive access'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, though the 'destructive access' requirement hints at caution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds an authorization requirement ('Requires database and destructive access'), which is a useful behavioral note. However, it does not explain the consequences of deletion (e.g., whether data is permanently removed or if related objects are affected).
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 consists of two short sentences that convey the operation and a key requirement. There is no redundancy or filler; every word is functional.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation, the description is quite minimal. It covers the basic action and an authorization note, but lacks information about the permanence of deletion or error cases. Given the annotations already flag destructiveness, the description is minimally sufficient but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no details about the two parameters. The agent cannot learn that database_id is required or what server_id does from the description. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a database'), which precisely states the action and object. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on other resources like files or backups.
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 like create_database or rotate_database_password. The only requirement mentioned is 'database and destructive access', which is more a prerequisite than a usage directive. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a key behavioral trait beyond annotations: large files are truncated to protect model context. The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the extra truncation warning is valuable and actionable. It does not contradict any annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and a critical limitation. It contains no filler or redundancy, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool, the description covers purpose and a key limit, but lacks usage guidance relative to siblings and fails to clarify max_chars and server_id. The absence of output schema and parameter semantics makes the description incomplete for autonomous invocation.
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 explain parameters. It only implies 'path' through 'read a text file' and does not explain max_chars (which controls truncation) or server_id (target server). The truncation note hints at max_chars, but the connection is not made explicit.
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: 'Read a text file.' It names a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like read_file_chunk, the core action is clear.
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. With siblings such as read_file_chunk, read_log_tail, and find_in_file, the tool's description should clarify which scenario it fits. The mention of truncation could imply large-file handling, but it doesn't direct users to alternate tools for chunked reading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the auth need ('command access'), which is useful context, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as possible side effects or output format. The description does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and follows with a prerequisite. Every word earns its place, making it an appropriately sized description for a tool with only two parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a destructive tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the server_id parameter, what happens when the command runs, whether it is interactive, or indicate any failure modes. The prerequisite is helpful, but the overall context is insufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently without further assumptions.
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, but it barely does. It mentions 'command' as the thing being sent, which adds a bit of context, but it does not explain the meaning or usage of the server_id parameter, nor does it provide syntax or format details. The schema's title 'Command' already covers the obvious, so the description adds little value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Send') and resource ('server-console command'), making the tool's purpose evident. It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings (e.g., file, backup, database tools), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 gives a prerequisite ('Requires command access') which provides some context for when the tool can be used, but it does not offer guidance on when to prefer this tool versus alternatives like 'power' or 'server_details'. The usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds the scope of data returned (power state, CPU, RAM, etc.), which is useful but does not cover details like response format or behavior when `server_id` is null.
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 concise sentence that lists the key information categories. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple optional-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient information about the data returned. It lacks an explicit mention of the `server_id` parameter and any edge cases, but overall is reasonably complete given the tool's low complexity.
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?
The schema has one parameter `server_id` with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain the parameter's meaning or default behavior, relying on the parameter name to convey that it identifies the server. This is minimal compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves power state, CPU, RAM, disk, network, and game-query information for a server, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It distinguishes from power control and capabilities, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool `server_details`.
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 over alternatives like `server_details` or `power`. It simply lists what it gets, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds 'paginated' as a behavioral trait, but otherwise provides no additional context about response format, rate limits, or server scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place with precise wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema, the description does not describe the return value or pagination structure. It also omits guidance on server_id scope, making it incomplete despite its 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%, and the description does not explain page, per_page, or server_id semantics. The parameter names are self-explanatory but defaults and edge cases (e.g., server_id null meaning) are not documented.
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 reads paginated server audit logs, using the verb 'read' and specific resource 'audit logs'. It distinguishes from siblings like read_log_tail by specifying 'audit' logs rather than general log tails.
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 given on when to use this tool vs alternatives like read_log_tail or list_servers. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer when audit logs are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds pagination info ('one page') and mentions the include parameter, but does not disclose the response format or any other behavioral details beyond what annotations already provide.
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 sentence, front-loaded, and to the point. It avoids unnecessary words while conveying the core action and a useful parameter hint.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description does not clarify the response structure. It also lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. However, the annotations cover safety, and the pagination parameters are present in the schema, making the description minimally adequate for a simple list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates by explaining that 'include may contain node, egg, or allocations.' However, it does not describe the 'page' or 'per_page' parameters, though their defaults and names give some hints. The description adds value for include but not for the other two parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action with a specific verb and resource: 'List one page of servers.' It also mentions the include parameter, but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like server_details or server_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as server_details or server_status. It only states the action and gives a hint about the include parameter, leaving the agent without a basis for tool 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'one page' scope but provides no additional behavioral details such as output format, ordering, or auth requirements. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not enriched.
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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key information. Every word earns its place, and there is no bloat or repetition of schema 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?
For a simple list operation, the description provides the core function. However, with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the agent lacks information about what is returned, how pagination works, and whether server_id filters results. It is minimally viable but leaves important gaps for a 3-parameter tool.
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%, and the description does not mention any parameters or their semantics. The parameter names (page, per_page, server_id) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify how they interact or default behaviors. Since the schema provides no descriptions and the description does not compensate, this is a significant gap.
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 'List one page of server backups' clearly specifies the verb (list), the resource (server backups), and even the pagination scope (one page). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_backup, delete_backup, and deploy_backup, which perform different operations on backups.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is self-evident, the description does not mention when not to use it or reference any alternative list tools. The agent must infer usage from the context, and no exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds important nuance: kill specifically requires destructive access, implying other actions (start/stop/restart) may not. This goes beyond the flat annotation and clarifies behavioral requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences list all actions immediately, with the additional destructive-access note as a second sentence. No redundant words or filler.
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?
Despite annotations covering destructive intent, the description lacks crucial context: no explanation of the optional server_id parameter, no return value expectations, no prerequisites, and no guidance on when to use this tool. For a control action with side effects, this is under-specified.
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 explain parameters, but it does not mention signal or server_id explicitly. It only lists action words that imply the signal enum values, and entirely ignores the optional server_id and its default/null behavior.
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: 'Start, stop, restart, or force-kill a server.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the listed actions distinguish it from sibling tools like server_status or update_server.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only notes that 'Kill also requires destructive access,' which is a safety condition, not a usage directive. There is no mention of when to prefer this over send_console_command or server_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds the permission requirement (file-write access). However, it does not disclose behavior when the destination exists or error handling, but the added context meets the lower bar for annotated tools.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by a requirement. Every word earns its place with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation, the description is minimal. It lacks details on destination conflict behavior, server_id usage, or any error scenarios, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter explanation. It implies path and to are source and destination, but does not explain server_id or provide detailed semantics for any parameter, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 'Rename or move a file' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like copy_file or delete_file. It effectively communicates the core operation.
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 only usage guidance is 'Requires file-write access', which is a prerequisite but not explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like copy_file. It implies usage but lacks exclusions or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the access requirement 'backup and destructive access,' which is not covered by annotations. This provides useful context about required permissions beyond what the annotations state, though it does not elaborate on consequences 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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that front-load the purpose and add a requirement. There is no wasted verbiage, and the structure is clear and efficient.
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 the core operation but is incomplete given the optional server_id parameter and lack of return/error behavior. No output schema exists, and annotations don't fill the gap for parameter semantics. It is minimally adequate but leaves room for ambiguity in multi-server scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about backup_id or server_id. The tool's parameters are not explained, leaving the agent to infer their meaning solely from names. The optional server_id's purpose or when to use it is entirely undocumented.
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 'Delete a backup' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_backup, list_backups, and deploy_backup. It is unambiguous and directly states the tool's action.
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 mentions the requirement for 'backup and destructive access,' implying a prerequisite for use, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Usage is implied from the tool's name and purpose, but no contrasting tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds pagination scope ('one page') and server attachment context, but does not disclose the nullable server_id behavior or the role of include_host.
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 redundancy; every word contributes to the purpose.
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 has 4 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the basic listing behavior, but ambiguity around include_host and server_id=null, plus no return value description, makes it only moderately complete for a low-complexity tool.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions 'one page' (page/per_page) and 'server' (server_id), but fails to explain the include_host parameter or what server_id=null means, leaving key parameters underspecified.
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' with resource 'databases' and scope 'one page attached to a server', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_servers and create_database.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The context implies this is for listing databases, but it does not mention when to use list_servers for server discovery or clarify the server_id=null case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the behavioral context of returning only one page and suggests pagination for large directories, but does not disclose response format or error 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. No redundancy or filler words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, requiring some context about pagination and parameters. The description is adequate for a simple listing operation but lacks details about path interpretation, server selection, or expected return structure.
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?
With zero schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explicitly mentions page and per_page for pagination, but does not explain path or server_id semantics. This leaves half the parameters unexplained, so the description adds limited value over 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 states 'List one page of a server directory' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_file by indicating it lists directory contents rather than file contents, and mentions pagination explicitly.
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 offers a pagination tip ('Use page/per_page for large directories') but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. Usage is implied by the resource type, but no direct comparison or exclusion criteria are 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds no further behavioral context beyond the purpose, such as behavior on missing files or whether lines are read from the end without following.
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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's core function. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 read-only, with an output schema available. However, the description omits clarification of the 'server_id' parameter and does not mention potential edge cases, leaving some gap in completeness for a multi-parameter tool.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains 'N' in the context of 'lines' but leaves 'path' and 'server_id' unexplained, providing only partial 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 clearly states a specific verb ('read'), a specific resource ('text log file'), and a specific scope ('last N lines'). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like read_file or read_file_chunk by focusing on tailing log files.
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 reading the tail of a log file but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like read_file or read_file_chunk. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful context beyond the all-false annotations by indicating the tool modifies state (locking) and is not destructive (prevents deletion). However, it omits details about reversibility, idempotency, or what happens if the backup is already locked, leaving some ambiguity about 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—one sentence stating the core purpose and a second short sentence providing a prerequisite. Every word earns its place, and the primary action is 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?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers purpose and access requirements but leaves gaps: no explanation of parameters, no mention of success/failure indicators, and no behavioral details like reversibility. Given no annotations or output schema, these omissions reduce completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides no descriptions for backup_id or server_id (0% coverage), and the description only mentions 'a backup' generically. It does not clarify the role of server_id or any parameter formatting requirements, leaving the agent to guess at 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 'lock' with a clear resource ('a backup') and the purpose ('against accidental deletion'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_backup, create_backup, and backup_download, which have different actions and outcomes.
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 directly states the intended use case (preventing accidental deletion) and a prerequisite ('Requires backup access'). While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool versus other backup-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: the read is bounded by character count and returns continuation metadata indicating whether more content remains. This goes beyond simple safety declarations, though it doesn't detail edge cases like EOF 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the core purpose in 13 words. No filler or redundant information — every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It establishes the chunked reading concept and continuation metadata, but lacks explicit details on how to use offset/defaults or how continuation metadata chains the next call. The output schema may cover return structure, but usage logic remains partially implicit.
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 for parameter meaning. It only vaguely references 'bounded character range', which hints at offset_chars and max_chars but never explains their semantics or the role of server_id. This is insufficient for correct parameter usage.
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 (Read) and resource (bounded character range from a text file), and explicitly mentions continuation metadata, clearly distinguishing this from plain read_file. It succinctly captures the tool's unique 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?
Implied usage for reading large text files in chunks is present ('bounded', 'continuation metadata'), but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this as a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it searches for 'literal text' (not regex), returns 'line-numbered excerpts,' and is scoped to return only a portion of the file. It does not detail return format extremes (e.g., no matches) but adds value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core function. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema information. This is a model of conciseness.
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 has 6 parameters, an output schema, and several sibling tools. The description covers the core search-and-excerpt behavior but omits guidance on server_id selection, case sensitivity nuances, or behavior with zero matches. Given the output schema exists, return values are documented elsewhere, but the description could still offer more operational context for a smooth invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly conveys that 'query' is a literal string (not regex) and that 'context_lines' and 'max_matches' influence the 'small line-numbered excerpts.' However, it does not explain the 'server_id' parameter or the default behavior of 'case_sensitive' beyond what schema defaults imply. The description adds some meaning but not comprehensive parameter guidance.
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 ('Find literal text') and resource ('in a file'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing it returns 'small line-numbered excerpts instead of the whole file.' This directly contrasts with read_file and read_file_chunk, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'instead of the whole file' implies a use case (when you need excerpts, not the full content) but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it. No direct comparison with grep-like functionality or other siblings like replace_in_file is provided. The guidance is primarily implied rather than explicit, earning a mid-range score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety traits. The description adds the behavioral guarantee 'Never returns secrets', which is a meaningful security-related disclosure not present in annotations. It also clarifies what information is shown.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no fluff. The action verb 'Show' is front-loaded, and the security note 'Never returns secrets' is a concise, high-value addition. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and a key behavioral guarantee. The term 'operation classes' is not explained, but the existing output schema likely provides structure, making this sufficient overall.
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, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter syntax or meaning; it focuses on the output content, which is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Show' with resource 'configured server and enabled operation classes', making the purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like server_details and server_status by focusing on operation classes, even if not explicitly contrasting them.
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_servers or server_details. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without selection criteria beyond the name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond this: it specifies the exact return values (SHA-256 and size) and the constraint 'text file,' which implies it may not handle binary files. This is useful and not redundant with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the core verb and outcome. Every word earns its place, and it is immediately clear what the tool does.
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, the description is reasonably complete. Output schema exists, so return format is handled elsewhere, and annotations cover safety. The main missing piece is explanation of the server_id parameter, which the description does not address, but overall the tool is adequately specified.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention parameters at all. While 'path' is self-explanatory, 'server_id' is unexplained, leaving ambiguity about its purpose and whether it is required for remote files. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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: returning SHA-256 and size metadata for a text file. It explicitly distinguishes itself from content-returning tools by adding 'without returning its content,' making its purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'without returning its content' implies this should be used when only metadata is needed, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the sibling tools (e.g., read_file) make the contrast obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds meaningful context about optimistic concurrency and server-side execution, which clarifies the tool's operational model beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and distinguishing feature. Every word adds value with no 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 is adequate for a simple replacement tool, but gaps remain: expected_count semantics, server_id usage, and failure behavior when the old snippet is not found or expected_sha256 mismatches. The output schema may cover return values, but parameter semantics are partly unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the core concept of exact snippet matching (old/new) and concurrency (expected_sha256), but leaves expected_count and server_id unexplained, forcing inference from 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 replaces an exact snippet server-side with optimistic concurrency, which is a specific verb + resource. It also distinguishes from whole-file writes found in sibling tools like write_file and safe_write_file.
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 when to use this tool: when you need a targeted snippet replacement without rewriting the entire file. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'avoiding whole-file model output' phrase gives clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful context: the write is conditional on a hash match, and it only applies to existing files. It doesn't disclose the failure mode on mismatch, but it enriches the behavioral model beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence, perfectly front-loaded, with no redundant words. Every word contributes meaning, and it conveys the core contract efficiently.
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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the full contract: target (existing file), precondition (hash must match), and the conditional nature of the overwrite. It implies the required 'read first then safe write' workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'expected_sha256' via the SHA-256 condition, and 'path'/'content' are self-evident. However, 'server_id' is not mentioned, and the description does not fully elaborate each parameter's purpose.
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 specifies a clear action ('Overwrite') with a specific resource ('existing text file') and a precise condition (SHA-256 match). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'write_file' tool, which likely performs unconditional writes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The condition 'only if its SHA-256 still matches the value previously read' clearly implies a compare-and-swap workflow, indicating when this tool should be used (when you have a prior read hash and want to avoid clobbering changes). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![wisp-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BreezeDelegate/wisp-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BreezeDelegate/wisp-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/BreezeDelegate/wisp-mcp'

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