dpr-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Every tool targets a distinct resource-action pair: projects, files, workspaces, changes, and conflicts. Even the convenience wrappers (approve_change, request_changes) are clearly labeled and do not overlap with the core review_change. The boundaries between get_history, get_revision, and get_diff are evident from their descriptions.
Naming Consistency5/5All 32 tool names follow a strict verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case (e.g., create_project, list_workspaces, rebase_change). Verbs are consistently imperative and specific, making the toolset predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count3/532 tools is heavy compared to typical server scopes, but the domain (Git-backed project management with workspaces, change lifecycle, and conflict resolution) is broad enough to justify a larger surface. Still, it leans toward the upper limit, and some consolidation could be possible without losing clarity.
Completeness4/5The toolset covers the full lifecycle: project creation, file manipulation, workspace management, change creation/review/merge/rollback, and conflict handling. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_project or rename operations), but the core workflow is complete and agents can accomplish all major tasks without dead ends.
Average 2.9/5 across 32 of 32 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto 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
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether abandoning is reversible, what happens to associated approvals or mergeability, or any side effects. The single-sentence description provides no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks any substantive details the agent needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, it is completely inadequate. The agent has no idea what the operation does beyond the verb, what conditions apply, or what the result looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does 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 the change_id parameter at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare field definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb and resource: abandon a change request. It's understandable but does not distinguish from siblings like rollback_change or rebase_change, nor does it explain what abandoning entails beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, but it only restates the tool's name ('create new file') and adds the vague precondition of an 'active workspace'. It fails to disclose behavior on existing files, permission requirements, error handling, or return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At seven words, the description is under-specified rather than concise. A tool with three required parameters needs more detail about preconditions, parameter usage, and outcomes. The single sentence does not effectively front-load critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It omits any discussion of error conditions (e.g., file already exists, invalid workspace), workspace requirements, or return behavior, making it inadequate for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the three required parameters (workspace_id, path, content). It does not compensate for the lack of schema information, leaving agents to guess parameter formats and semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action (create), resource (file), and location (active workspace). It is distinguishable from siblings like edit_file and delete_file by the verb 'create' and the word 'new', 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It mentions 'active workspace' as a condition, but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_project or edit_file. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent without guidance on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'gets' a record, implying a read operation, but gives no details on output format, whether it is read-only, any side effects, or what constitutes a 'complete provenance record'. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the behavior beyond a simple fetch.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, which is appropriately concise. However, it is under-specified—its brevity comes at the cost of critical context. It is front-loaded but lacks substance, making it arguably too short for the tool's needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a single parameter and no output schema, so the description must explain what 'provenance record' entails and how it differs from related tools like get_history or get_revision. It does neither, leaving the agent without a complete understanding of what it will receive or when to use it. This is inadequate for a tool that overlaps with several siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes a single required parameter 'change_id' with type string, but provides no explanation or format. The description does not add any meaning to this parameter—it does not clarify that this is the identifier of the Change Request, its format, or any constraints. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('Change Request') along with the specific aspect ('complete provenance record'), which is clear and distinct from a generic 'get_change' or 'get_history'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_history' or 'get_revision', so it leaves some ambiguity about what 'provenance' specifically includes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does 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 like get_history, get_revision, and get_diff, an agent has no way to know which to select without additional information. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get details,' which implies a read operation but does not state whether it is read-only, what permissions are required, what the response format is, or any side effects. Crucially, it does not even confirm that no mutation occurs. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple 'get' operation. However, it is underspecified, which slightly lowers the score, though conciseness itself is strong.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two required parameters with zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent would not know what 'revision' means, what details are returned, or any constraints. The description provides minimal context and is inadequate for a tool with this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides only types and titles, no descriptions. The tool description does not add any meaning to 'revision' or 'project_id' – it does not explain what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or how they relate to the tool's function. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb (get) and resource (details for a single commit revision). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_history (list of revisions) or get_diff (changes between revisions), though it does not explicitly name them. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to recognize the intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine from the description when to call this instead of get_history or get_provenance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it offers almost nothing. It doesn't explain the side effects (e.g., status change, notification, whether it triggers a workflow), the expected format of the comment, or the reversibility. The description is too sparse to guide correct invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It consists of a single vague phrase and lacks essential details. The structure is not problematic, but the content is insufficient for a tool with multiple siblings and no annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for a tool that performs a meaningful action on a change. It does not explain what 'request changes' entails, the expected outcome, or any constraints. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without enough context to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should clarify the parameters. It does not explain what 'change_id' and 'comment' mean in this context or how they are used. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds zero value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('request changes') on a specific resource ('Change Request'), but it does not differentiate among the many sibling tools like review_change, approve_change, or abandon_change. The term 'convenience wrapper' adds slight ambiguity about what it actually does, yet the core purpose is understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or distinguish between 'request changes' and other actions like 'update_change' or 'review_change'. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'approve', implying a state change, but does not describe side effects, permission requirements, what happens to the change request, or what the response contains. This is too sparse for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient in length, but it omits essential context. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, leaving an agent without sufficient guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine what 'approve' entails, what response to expect, or when to prefer this over its siblings. The missing behavioral and usage details make this inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has two parameters (change_id, comment) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds nothing about them. While the names are self-explanatory, the description does not clarify the role of the optional comment, any constraints on change_id, or default behavior (the schema has a default, which is already visible).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'approve' and the resource 'Change Request', making the core action clear. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like review_change or request_changes, and the phrase 'convenience wrapper' implies an alternative without explaining how it differs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of related tools such as review_change, request_changes, or update_change. There is no mention of prerequisites, when approval is appropriate, or which scenarios call for this wrapper.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, whether it overwrites prior reviews, permission requirements, or how it interacts with change status. The brevity of 'Record a review' provides no insight into the tool's behavior beyond the literal act.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and the valid decisions. It is appropriately short, though it omits essential context that would make the conciseness effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and multiple overlapping siblings, the description is far too incomplete. It does not clarify relationships to approve_change/request_changes, does not mention prerequisites (e.g., change must exist), and leaves return behavior unknown. This is insufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It names the decision values, helping for the 'decision' field, but does not mention the 'comment' parameter at all, nor clarify that change_id is the identifier. The description partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves the comment field unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Record a review' on a change request and enumerates the three possible decisions (APPROVED, CHANGES_REQUESTED, COMMENTED), which differentiates it from sibling tools like approve_change and request_changes that handle only one decision each. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, leaving some ambiguity about redundancy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus approve_change, request_changes, or update_change. Given the overlapping sibling tools, an agent would not know if this is the general mechanism or if the specialized siblings are preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the creation action, omitting side effects, whether the operation is idempotent, what project_id means for the resulting project, and any prerequisites for calling it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is quite thin.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify parameter semantics and expected behavior. It provides only a one-line purpose, leaving the agent to guess about return values and side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds nothing about the two parameters. An agent cannot tell from either source what distinguishes project_id from name, their value formats, or their roles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb and resource ('Create a new Git-backed project') with a useful qualifier. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby sibling create_workspace, so an agent must infer the difference between a Git-backed project and a workspace.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'Git-backed' qualifier implies a distinction from create_workspace, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that deletion is permanent, irreversible, or what side effects (e.g., removing references) might occur. The phrase 'active workspace' hints at prerequisites but does not explain what happens if the workspace is inactive or what errors might result. No information about permission requirements or whether deletion is recursive 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that states the core function without extraneous detail. It is front-loaded with the verb and target, and there is no padding or repetition. Given the simplicity of the tool, the length is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal and lacks essential operational details. It does not specify return values, success/failure indications, error scenarios, or side effects. For a deletion operation without an output schema, the absence of behavioral context leaves agents guessing about expected outcomes. Sibling complexity (e.g., workspace interactions) also suggests more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not clarify what 'path' refers to (relative vs. absolute), expected formats, or how 'workspace_id' is used. The description's phrase 'within an active workspace' only vaguely implies workspace_id's role but offers no practical guidance for constructing valid inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and target (a file) within the context of an active workspace, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_file or delete_workspace. It is specific and unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not mention any caveats such as irreversibility or permission requirements.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions (e.g., when not to use it) or reference sibling tools that might be more appropriate for related operations. An agent gets no help choosing between delete_file and delete_workspace or other file operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The term 'overwrite' indicates destructive replacement of file content, which is a useful hint, but it does not mention error behavior on non-existing files, permission requirements, encoding, or any other side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the core operation and scope, though it sacrifices semantic richness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three required parameters with zero documentation, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter formats, preconditions like workspace activation, error handling, or return value, leaving agents to guess critical details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no information about the three required parameters (path, content, workspace_id). The agent must infer their meaning from names alone, which is ambiguous for path and content, and the description fails to compensate for the schema's complete lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('edit') with a clarifying parenthetical ('overwrite'), names the resource ('file'), and adds preconditions ('existing', 'within an active workspace'). This clearly distinguishes it from create_file and delete_file, and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_file or delete_file, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implicit active workspace. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from sibling names and general file operations knowledge.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but it does not state whether the tool requires any permissions, what happens when the change is not conflicted, or whether the operation is safe and reversible. There is also no mention of the response format or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it could be considered under-specified rather than properly concise, so it does not earn a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that is part of a rich conflict lifecycle (with siblings like propose_conflict_resolution, apply_conflict_resolution, and check_mergeability), the description lacks essential context. It does not explain what the returned conflict information can be used for, nor any preconditions or relationships to other tools. With no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to know when and how to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has only one parameter, change_id, with 0% description coverage. The description does not clarify what change_id refers to beyond the name itself. Although the name is fairly self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent with no additional meaning (e.g., 'ID of the change request to fetch conflicts for').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (Get) and resource (structured conflict information for a conflicted Change Request), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like propose_conflict_resolution or check_mergeability. It is not a tautology, though it could be more precise about what 'structured' entails (e.g., conflict categories, file paths).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the first step before proposing or applying resolutions, nor does it note constraints such as requiring a change to already be in a conflicted state. An agent must infer the intended use from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the return type (a summary of branches, changes, workspaces) but does not disclose side effects (presumably read-only), permission requirements, potential errors (e.g., invalid project_id), or any performance or rate-limit considerations. This is minimal coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and lists the status components compactly. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter, the description must provide enough context for correct invocation. It clarifies the high-level return content but omits details like the exact response format, potential error scenarios, and any preconditions (e.g., project existence). This is incomplete for a tool with no other documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does 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 single parameter project_id. It does not explain what a project_id is, how to obtain it, or any constraints (e.g., must exist). The parameter name is self-evident in isolation, but the description adds zero semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('summary status for a project'), and enumerates the three components of that status (branches, open changes, active workspaces). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_change or list_workspaces by focusing on a project-level aggregate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does 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. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or refer to sibling tools that might serve a similar purpose for more granular data. The agent is left to infer when a summary is preferable to individual list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get details' without stating that it is a read-only operation, what happens if the workspace does not exist, or any error/response behavior. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the trivial task, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple get-by-id tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what 'details' means, the return format, or error handling (e.g., 404 behavior). For an agent to use it correctly, it needs to know what it can expect back and potential failure modes, which are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is one parameter, workspace_id, and the schema provides no description (coverage 0%). The description only repeats the parameter name without adding meaning—it does not explain what a workspace id is, its format, or how to obtain it. Since the schema is empty, the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'workspace', and specifies the key 'by id'. This distinguishes it from list_workspaces (which lists all workspaces) and create_workspace/delete_workspace. However, 'details' is vague and could be more specific about what attributes are returned, so it doesn't quite earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 like list_workspaces or get_project_status. The description simply states what it does but provides no context about when to prefer it over siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning whether results include line numbers, search semantics (regex vs substring), case sensitivity, or any limitations. It does not disclose anything beyond the basic operation, leaving agents with significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. However, conciseness comes at the cost of critical missing details; while structurally clean, it under-specifies the tool's behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot infer the return format, search behavior, or how results are presented, which are essential for correct invocation and interpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'project' in the text, which clarifies project_id, but it does not explain the 'query' parameter at all—no format, pattern language, or expected content. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('file contents within a project's default branch checkout'), clearly distinguishing it from list_files (which lists file names) and read_file (which reads a specific file). It is not a tautology and provides enough scope to separate it from siblings, though it doesn't 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 list_files or read_file. The description implies content search but provides no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation mutates (updates rationale and refreshes head revision) but does not explain side effects, reversibility, required change state, or any potential impact on other resources. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant wording. The action is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what happens after the update, but it only states the action. It doesn't describe return values, success/failure behavior, or any prerequisites. For a simple update tool, it is incomplete but not severely lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'rationale' and 'head revision' but does not explain the change_id parameter (which is required) or the rationale's acceptable format/optionality (though the schema shows it's nullable). It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('update') with a specific resource ('a Change Request') and lists the exact actions (update rationale, refresh head revision). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_change, get_change, or abandon_change. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it doesn't earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 other change-management tools (e.g., review_change, approve_change, merge_change). No prerequisites, constraints, or conditions for invocation are mentioned. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation (though likely), how results are ordered, whether pagination is handled via the limit parameter, or what output is returned. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of explicit behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and optionality. There is zero redundancy. It is appropriately brief for a tool whose primary behavior is self-evident from the name, even though it lacks detail in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has four parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the default behavior (e.g., limit=50, revision=HEAD), the nature of the returned commit history (e.g., format, ordering), or any prerequisites. The output schema may clarify returns, but the tool's usage context is under-specified, leaving agents to guess about crucial execution details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only hints at the 'path' parameter ('optionally scoped to a path'). It does not explain the semantics of 'limit' (pagination), 'revision' (which revision to start from), or 'project_id' (the target project). The schema provides defaults but not meaning, so the description falls short of compensating for the parameter documentation gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get commit history'), the resource (project), and an optional scope (path). This is specific enough to distinguish from get_revision (a single revision) and get_diff (differences), though it does not explicitly name sibling tools. The purpose is unambiguous, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 like get_revision, get_diff, or list_changes. It does not mention contexts such as reviewing history before a merge or comparing revisions. No exclusions or conditions are given, so agents must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the approval policy, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., irreversible merge), authentication requirements, or consequences of applying an already-applied resolution. The description is too sparse to give an agent a clear picture of the operation's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no redundant text. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the approval-policy note is relevant without being verbose. It is appropriately sized for a tool with a single parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not specify where the conflict_id comes from, what happens on success or failure, or any preconditions beyond 'previously proposed and reviewed'. An agent would need to infer too much to invoke this correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the only parameter, conflict_id. While the schema labels it 'Conflict Id', the description adds no meaning about what that ID refers to (e.g., from get_conflicts or propose_conflict_resolution) or what format it expects. Given the low coverage, the description must compensate but fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Apply (merge)') and resource ('a previously proposed and reviewed conflict resolution'). It conveys the action and implies a specific workflow (propose → review → apply), distinguishing it from propose_conflict_resolution. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from merge_change, which is a close sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It indicates the prerequisite: the resolution must be 'previously proposed and reviewed'. This gives contextual guidance on when to use the tool. It also hints at an approval policy comparable to other merges, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name any alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool 'creates' a Change Request, indicating a mutation, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions required, what happens if the workspace has no commits, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. No wasted words. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, but for conciseness alone it earns a high score because it gets to the point quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and two parameters with zero schema descriptions, the description is far too sparse to provide complete context. It omits information about prerequisites (e.g., an existing workspace with commits), the nature of the rationale field, how the commits are selected, and what the response contains. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions for the two parameters (workspace_id and rationale). The description mentions 'commits in a workspace,' which gives some hint that workspace_id refers to a workspace containing commits, but it does not explain the purpose or format of rationale, nor does it clarify that both parameters are required. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to adequately define the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create) and the resource (Change Request), and specifies the source (commits in a workspace). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project or create_workspace, which create different entities. The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that the tool is used to create a Change Request from workspace commits, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools (e.g., update_change, merge_change, or list_changes). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical workflows, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only check but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, what it returns (e.g., a boolean or detailed report), or how it handles non-clean merges. The lack of behavioral detail is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that conveys the core purpose without any extraneous content. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, giving the agent immediate clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple check with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format, possible outcomes (e.g., clean vs. conflict), or any preconditions (e.g., whether the change must be in a particular state). An agent would lack essential context to interpret the result correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage for the single parameter change_id, and the description does not explicitly explain that it identifies the Change Request to check. The parameter name is self-explanatory in context, but the description adds no semantic clarification beyond the schema's field name, failing to compensate for the missing schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (check), a resource (a Change Request), and the context (merge into default branch). It distinguishes from siblings like merge_change (which performs the merge) and get_conflicts (which likely returns conflict details), making the tool's intent unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 get_conflicts or merge_change. The description only states what it does, not when it should be invoked (e.g., before attempting a merge) or scenarios where a different tool is more 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it creates a worktree but does not mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects beyond creation. It doesn't state what happens to existing workspaces or if it fails on invalid project_id.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple but lacks essential context: it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., project must exist), return value (e.g., workspace info), or contrast with sibling workspace tools like list_workspaces or delete_workspace. This is incomplete for an agent that must know what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It only implies that project_id refers to a project, but doesn't define its format, required existence, or relation to the workspace. This is insufficient for a parameter with no description in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Create', resource 'workspace', and qualifies it as 'isolated Git worktree' for 'making changes to a project'. This is specific and differentiates from siblings like create_project (creates a project) and create_change (creates a change), so an agent can tell them apart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer that a workspace is needed before making changes, which is not stated. The presence of create_project and create_change makes this gap more significant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the destructive action ('Delete') but does not explain irreversible consequences, cascading deletion of associated projects/files, authentication requirements, or any confirmation/rollback behavior. For a destructive operation, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action and ownership condition without any fluff. It is concise and wastes no words, though it may be too terse given the missing behavioral and parameter detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a destructive operation with no annotations or output schema, the description should explain consequences, ownership verification, and what happens to associated data. It only mentions ownership, leaving the agent without critical safety and context information. It is incomplete for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no documentation for workspace_id. The description also adds no explanation of what workspace_id is, how to obtain it, or its format. The agent must infer everything from the parameter name alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete (remove)') and the resource ('a workspace'), and adds the ownership qualifier 'you own', which differentiates it from operations on other resources. It is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like list_workspaces or get_workspace.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'a workspace you own' implies a condition for use, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., 'do not use for workspaces shared with you') or prerequisites like verifying ownership. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but does not state whether it is read-only, what happens if the id does not exist, or any side effects. There is no mention of pagination, errors, or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, using a single sentence with zero wasted words. However, it is almost too sparse, bordering on under-specification, but for a simple get operation it is appropriately compact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description might be sufficient for a basic fetch. However, it lacks any context about what a 'Change Request' is, error handling, or typical use cases, leaving some gap for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'by id' without elaborating on the change_id parameter. It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name and tool title, failing to explain format, constraints, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Change Request') with a filter by id, making it distinct from siblings like list_changes, update_change, or delete_change. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 over alternatives. It states only the action (get by id), leaving the usage context implicit. No exclusions or conditions are given, so an agent might struggle to decide between this and list_changes if it does not have an id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation without noting side effects, permissions, or safety (e.g., read-only nature). This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it efficiently scannable for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with three string parameters and no output schema, the description provides a minimal functional statement. However, it lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics, and does not hint at the output structure despite saying 'structured diff'. The completeness is adequate for basic invocation but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not add meaning to the parameters beyond their names. It mentions 'two revisions' but does not clarify what base_revision and head_revision represent (e.g., hashes, branch names) or their formats. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('structured diff between two revisions in a project'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_revision (single revision) and get_history (revision list). The word 'structured' suggests a formal diff format, further clarifying the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as check_mergeability or get_conflicts. The description provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation mutates state by writing to the default branch, but never discloses what happens to the Change Request after merging (marked merged? closed?), whether it can fail if the branch state changed, what the response looks like, or whether the action is reversible. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with zero wasted words. The core action, scope, and both preconditions are packed in efficiently, with the action and destination front-loaded before the qualifying conditions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the essential precondition is stated, but it lacks failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the merge fails at the last moment), post-merge state of the change request, and any indication of the response. The presence of rollback_change among siblings hints at reversibility but the description itself never addresses it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The only parameter, change_id, is just labeled 'string' in the schema; the description adds meaning by implying it refers to the Change Request to merge and that it must be approved and conflict-free. Given only a single simple parameter, the implicit clarification is adequate, though it could state the ID format or reference explicitly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (merge) applied to a specific resource (Change Request) with a clear destination (project's default branch). It also encodes preconditions (approved, conflict-free) that distinguish it from sibling stages like approve_change, request_changes, and check_mergeability. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it falls just 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied through the preconditions 'approved, conflict-free' – an agent can infer it should only run after approval and after mergeability checks succeed. However, it never explicitly states when-not-to-use, names alternative tools (e.g., check_mergeability before, rollback_change after), or mentions sequencing with the change lifecycle siblings. The guidance is inferred, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (rebase) but does not disclose whether the rebase is destructive to local commits, whether it can fail due to conflicts, what happens to the existing branch history, or what the success/result looks like. For a mutating operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-formed sentence with zero filler words. The core action and target are stated up front, and there is no redundant phrase that merely restates the tool name. It is an efficient, front-loaded definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Rebase is a non-trivial operation with real consequences (history rewriting, potential conflicts), yet with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves outcomes, failure modes, and side effects completely unexplained. An agent cannot anticipate what happens on conflict, whether the operation is reversible, or what a successful call returns. The definition is too thin for the complexity of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions change_id. The identity of the parameter is implied by the sentence ('Rebase a Change Request...'), which helps an agent infer that change_id refers to the change whose branch is being rebased. However, with zero coverage the description should compensate more explicitly, and it adds no format, semantics, or context beyond what the schema's bare name provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies a precise verb (Rebase), a concrete resource (a Change Request's workspace branch), and a clear target (current default branch). It tells an agent exactly what action is performed and on what. The phrasing naturally distinguishes this from merge_change (merges a branch) and update_change (modifies change metadata), since rebasing onto the default branch is a uniquely described operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a use case — bringing a change request's branch up to date with the default branch — but never explicitly states when to choose rebase over its sibling alternatives like merge_change or update_change. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions given. An agent gets enough to understand the operation's general purpose but no explicit routing guidance among the many sibling change-management tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read', which clearly indicates a non-mutating operation, and mentions 'active workspace' as a precondition. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as error handling for missing files, permission requirements, or potential size limitations. The transparency is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no wasted text, and it quickly communicates the core functionality. It would be a 5 if it also provided a brief note on parameters or usage, but as is, it is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool is simple (two parameters) but has zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description should provide enough detail for an agent to call it correctly. It does not explain the meaning of path or workspace_id, nor does it clarify what 'active workspace' entails. An agent would have to infer critical parameter semantics, making the description incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It mentions 'a file's content' and 'active workspace', which gives some context for the path and workspace_id parameters, but it does not explain the expected path format (absolute vs relative), how workspace_id should be specified, or any constraints on these values. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names themselves.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Read' and the resource 'a file's content', and adds the scope 'from within an active workspace'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_files (which lists files) and search_files (which searches), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context that the tool operates 'within an active workspace', which implies it should be used when reading file content. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_files or search_files, nor does it mention any exclusion conditions. Guidance is implied but not made explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'at HEAD', which hints at a read-only operation against the current commit, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or how results are paginated/structured beyond the output schema. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and key option without any redundancy or filler. Every word earns its place, and it is immediately scannable by an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only two parameters and an output schema exists, so the return format is defined elsewhere. However, the absence of annotations and the lack of explicit usage guidance (e.g., when to use vs. search_files) mean the description does not fully address the agent's need for safe, correct selection. It is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter explanations. The description clarifies that 'project' (project_id) is the context and 'subpath' is an optional location within it, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not detail formats or constraints (e.g., whether subpath is a directory, path separator), so it only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'files within a project', and adds the optional subpath qualifier. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_files (which searches) and read_file (which reads a single file), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing files at HEAD, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over search_files or read_file. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusionary conditions, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior (creating a new CR linked to the original conflict) but omits prerequisites (e.g., commits required), side effects on the original conflict, and any error conditions. Partial disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no extraneous content. The description leads with the main action and then states the outcome, making it efficient and easily scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks critical details: prerequisites (what happens if no commits exist?), the relationship and side effects on the original CR, the expected outcome of the new CR, and any error conditions. Given the tool's complexity and absence of annotations, this is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain each parameter. It implicitly explains change_id (the conflicted CR) and resolver_workspace_id (the separate workspace with commits), but provides no explanation for the rationale parameter. Incomplete compensation for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (propose a resolution), the resource (conflicted Change Request), and the mechanism (using commits from a separate resolver workspace). It also differentiates from sibling apply_conflict_resolution by emphasizing creation of a new, independently reviewable CR rather than direct application.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a conflicted CR exists and commits are ready in a separate workspace, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like apply_conflict_resolution or state when not to use it. The context is helpful but relies on inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all projects known to this server' implies a non-destructive read and states scope, which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, what happens with zero projects, or auth requirements—though these are less critical for a list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word earns its place; scope ('all', 'known to this server') is placed early. Nothing to trim.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema available, the description is essentially adequate. Slight deduction for not noting pagination or volume expectations, but the presence of an output schema relieves it from explaining return values. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about arguments. Schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a 4 is appropriate since no additional parameter semantics could reasonably be required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verb+resource ('List all projects') and scope ('known to this server'). Clear enough to distinguish from list_files, list_workspaces, and list_changes siblings since 'projects' is an unambiguous resource. Lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but ambiguity is low for a zero-arg list tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. For a simple zero-parameter list, usage is fairly implied—an agent would naturally call it to enumerate projects. However, no context is given about when to prefer this over related list_* siblings (e.g., when projects vs workspaces are needed), leaving room for a routing mistake.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List active workspaces', which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly say so, nor does it define 'active' or mention any side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the verb itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the action and context in the most efficient way possible.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return format is covered. However, the description does not specify what 'active' means, whether results are paginated, or that the operation is read-only. For a simple list tool with no annotations, more context would be helpful, but the core requirements (project_id) are met.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'for a project', which clarifies that project_id is the project identifier, but it does not explain the expected format or any constraints. The description adds a little meaning but not sufficient detail given zero schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('workspaces'), and a qualifier ('active' and 'for a project'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_workspace (single) and create_workspace/delete_workspace (write operations). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for enumerating workspaces of a given project, but it does not explicitly contrast with get_workspace (single) or explain when to prefer this over other listing tools. Context is clear but not explicit; no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The word 'List' strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm that it only reads data or mention any potential side effects, permission requirements, or pagination. This is a minor gap for a simple read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose. There is no extraneous information, and the structure is clear and scannable for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two params, no enums, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the essential purpose and the optional filter. It doesn't mention ordering or pagination, but such details are likely in the output schema and not critical for a listing operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains project_id as the project context and status as an optional filter, aligning with the schema's default null. However, it does not elaborate on acceptable status values or any format constraints, leaving some ambiguity given no enums are defined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('Change Requests'), and the scope ('for a project'), plus an optional filter. This distinguishes it from change-related siblings like get_change (single fetch) and create_change (creation), and it aligns with the name and required project_id parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool—listing changes for a project—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. For example, it doesn't state that get_change should be used for a single change, nor does it advise against using it without a project_id. This is adequate but relies on inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation creates a new commit and never rewrites history, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not mention side effects like permissions or reversibility, but the non-destructive nature is clearly highlighted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and constraint, efficiently covering the core purpose and the key non-rewrite guarantee.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the main operation but omits details such as prerequisites (commit must be merged), possible errors, return value, and the fate of the original commit. Given no structured safety or output info, the description could reasonably add more context without becoming verbose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% — the description mentions no parameters. It does not explain that project_id identifies the project, commit_sha is the commit to revert, or that rationale is an optional reason. The parameter names are semi-explicit, but the description adds zero semantic value, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('roll back') and resource ('previously merged commit') and clarifies the mechanism (creating a new forward commit) and scope (default branch). It clearly differentiates from siblings like rebase_change (which rewrites history) and abandon_change (which likely affects unmerged changes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear when-to-use context: only for previously merged commits on the default branch. It does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the 'previously merged' qualifier and the emphasis on not rewriting history provide strong implicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Charan-Sharan/dpr-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server