deep-think-mcp

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but the presence of begin_thought vs. begin_subagent_thought and commit_thought vs. commit_subagent_thought could cause confusion despite clear descriptions. Overall, the set is well-differentiated.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names are almost all in consistent verb_noun snake_case. 'keep_here' deviates slightly, and 'next_action' is not a verb_noun pair, but the pattern is generally predictable.
Tool Count3/5
25 tools is on the high side, bordering on heavy for an MCP server. While each tool appears justified for the complex workflow, the count could overwhelm agents.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: session management, thought creation/critique/refinement/commit, subagent rounds, state inspection, export/import. Only minor gaps exist, such as the lack of a tool to directly delete a thought.
Average 3.7/5 across 25 of 25 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 33 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It identifies the tool as a write operation ('Record'), but fails to describe side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return behavior. The presence of an output schema (context indicates one exists) is not mentioned, missing an opportunity to clarify outcomes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one short sentence), but it sacrifices necessary detail. While brevity is valued, the description is underinformative for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It lacks structure or front-loading of key information, resulting in poor usability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters (both required, no schema descriptions) and no annotations, the description should compensate but fails to do so. It does not explain what constitutes a critique, how a lens relates, or how the tool fits into the workflow with siblings like 'begin_thought' or 'advance_stage.' The output schema exists but is not leveraged.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning descriptions are absent for both parameters (text, session_id). The tool description does not explain these parameters; it only vaguely references 'critique produced by applying the current lens.' It does not clarify the role of session_id or the format of text, leaving the agent without essential semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('critique'), indicating the tool saves a critique. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'critique_current_thought' or 'score_current_thought', which may also involve recording or producing critiques. The phrase 'applying the current lens' is vague and lacks clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is used after applying a lens, but there are no explicit use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools exist for similar actions (e.g., critique_current_thought), but no comparative context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description is the sole source. It discloses two engine modes and a failure case, but the engine parameter is not in the schema, creating inconsistency. Does not explain operation beyond engine modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is front-loaded with core purpose, but includes details on an undocumented parameter, which adds unnecessary verbosity and confusion.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter explanations and introduces ambiguity with a non-existent parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and description fails to explain the three parameters (content, session_id, prompt_focus). Instead focuses on an undocumented 'engine' parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it starts a subagent thought, but introduces an undocumented 'engine' parameter that confuses the purpose. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'begin_thought' explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage: use for subagent thought initiation. Mentions a failure condition when a thought is already in progress, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives.
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. It merely states 'return a session's persisted state' without disclosing behavior like error handling (e.g., session not found), side effects, or whether it restores state for further operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence), but it is under-specified. While brevity is positive, the lack of important information reduces its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple (one parameter, output schema exists), the description fails to explain the return value or any constraints. The context is incomplete for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the 'session_id' parameter. It does not explain what a session ID represents or how to obtain it, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'return' and the resource 'session's persisted state', which distinguishes it from siblings like 'start_session' (start new) and 'clear_session' (clear).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'start_session' or 'list_sessions'. The description does not provide context for the agent to decide between resuming a session and other session-related actions.
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. It mentions an adjacency contract but does not disclose whether the tool modifies state, requires permissions, or is destructive. Key behavioral traits like locking the thought or resource consumption are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences, but the second sentence uses jargon ('adjacency contract') that may confuse some agents. It could be restructured for clarity without adding length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, return values are covered. However, with many sibling tools and no explanation of when to use this versus others (e.g., submit_critique), the description lacks workflow context. Behavioral details are also missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `lens` parameter (optional, default null, server picks if omitted), but the required `session_id` parameter is not explained at all, leaving a gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool opens a critique round and returns a lens template, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like submit_critique by focusing on initiation. However, it could be more explicit about what a 'critique round' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides guidance on when to omit the `lens` parameter to let the server choose, and mentions the adjacency contract. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives for the critique workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses destructive behavior (deletes file, removes from index), but without annotations, more context about irreversibility, permissions, or side effects would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Efficiently communicates the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits important context for a destructive operation, such as whether the action is reversible or requires specific permissions. The absence of annotations and parameter descriptions leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description offers no parameter-specific details beyond the name 'session_id'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool's action ('wipe a session') and what it does (deletes file and removes from index). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like start_session or list_sessions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites, or warnings. Given many sibling tools, explicit when-to-use advice is missing.
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 transparency. It mentions returning a payload but does not disclose side effects like whether the session is irrevocably finalized, if permissions are needed, or any error conditions. The description is vague about what 'finalized' means.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short and front-loaded with the primary action. However, the structure could be improved with clearer separation of purpose and output details. Still, it avoids unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so explaining return values is not needed. The description mentions the two tools returned, which helps context. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., session must be active) and how this fits in the overall workflow among many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is only one parameter (session_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what session_id is, its format, or any constraints beyond being required. It adds no value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Mark a session finalized.' It specifies the verb (mark) and resource (session), and distinguishes from siblings like move_session and keep_here by mentioning them as part of the output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by describing the output payload that includes a prompt and two tools, suggesting this tool is used before deciding whether to move or keep the session. However, it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like clear_session or start_session, nor when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It explains input format and return value but does not mention side effects, required prior steps, or whether the tool modifies state. The word 'Self-score' implies a read operation, but this is not confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences, each conveying essential information. The first sentence covers purpose and tolerance, the second covers input flexibility and output. There is no clutter, though breaking into bullet points could improve scanability slightly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the output as a convergence verdict ('whether to commit or run another lens'), which is helpful. However, it does not detail the 7 utility dimensions, nor the exact format of the verdict (e.g., boolean or string). Given an output schema exists, these details could be deferred, but the description leaves a gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining that 'scores' accepts a JSON object, fenced JSON, or text like 'correctness: 0.8, ...'. This clarifies the flexible format, which the schema only hints at via anyOf. The session_id parameter lacks extra context, but the primary parameter is well explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool self-scores the refined thought across 7 utility dimensions and returns a convergence verdict. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like critique_current_thought or refine_current_thought, though it does not explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions partial input tolerance and that missing dimensions carry forward, which provides some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., critique_current_thought) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the locking, content update, cursor clearing, and failure condition. However, it does not state whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions, which would be helpful for an AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences covering key points. The first sentence could be slightly more concise but is acceptable. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is one of 25 siblings and has an output schema (unseen), the description lacks param details and output explanation. It mentions a failure condition but does not help the agent differentiate from similar tools or understand what to expect upon success.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter (session_id) with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description does not mention session_id at all, leaving the AI agent without guidance on its meaning or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (lock the current thought, write refined content back, clear cursor) and resource (current thought). It distinguishes from siblings like 'commit_subagent_thought' by implying this is for main thoughts, and its purpose is unique among the listed sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies a precondition: 'Fails with a directive if no critique round has completed yet,' which tells when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer this over similar tools like 'commit_subagent_thought'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses bootstrapping on first use and that without mode it returns a directive payload. No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Lacks details on idempotency, side effects, or permissions required for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
First sentence states purpose. Details follow logically: mode behavior, then stages/overrides format. Could be slightly more concise but is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers main behaviors and parameter formats. With output schema existing, return value documentation is sufficient. However, lacks explanation of bootstrapping implications and prerequisites. For a complex tool suite, more context on when to use vs siblings would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description compensates by explaining that stages accepts JSON array or comma/newline list and overrides accepts JSON object or string form. Mode behavior is clarified. Question parameter is required but self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Create a new session' and mentions bootstrapping the data store. It also describes behavior with/without mode. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like resume_session, which could be confused for session creation in some workflows.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides guidance on when to include mode (to skip set_session_mode) and what happens without mode (returns directive payload). However, it does not mention when to use alternatives like resume_session for existing sessions or set_session_mode separately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It details engine-specific actions (necort ignores candidate/scores; manual records them and may run selection) and budget enforcement. However, it does not describe side effects on session state, the structure of the returned 'round result', or error conditions. This leaves gaps in complete transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact yet informative, using bullet points to separate engine behaviors. Every sentence adds value, and the main action is front-loaded. A slight improvement would be to separate engine details into clearer subsections, but overall it is concise without being dense.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (two engines, parameter nuances, budget enforcement) and the lack of annotations, the description covers essential behaviors but omits the output format (despite an output schema existing), error conditions, and prerequisites (e.g., active subagent session). It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. It explains the 'candidate' and 'scores' parameters for the manual engine, including format ('correctness: 0.8, ...' text). It also clarifies that omitting candidate restarts the round. However, it does not explain the 'session_id' parameter at all, and the description of scores as '7-dim' is not reflected in the schema type (anyOf object/string/null). Partial but insufficient for full clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Advance the subagent thought by one step.' It specifies the resource (subagent round) and distinguishes two engine modes ('necort' and 'manual'), making it clear and distinct from sibling tools like advance_stage or commit_subagent_thought.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context for when to use each engine (Nash round vs. manual candidate recording), and mentions budget enforcement and round boundary behavior. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools (e.g., when to use advance_subagent_round vs. commit_subagent_thought), leaving some ambiguity about alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the failure condition and core effect, but omits details like side effects on session state, permission requirements, or return behavior. The output schema might compensate somewhat.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Condition placed at the end for completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers core action and failure condition, but given 21 siblings and a mutation tool, more context about when this is appropriate vs. other subagent steps would strengthen completeness. Output schema exists so return details are optional.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (session_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain it. The agent must infer its purpose, which is a gap for a tool that likely modifies state.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: locking the winning candidate as thought content and clearing cursor, with a specific verb 'Accept the current equilibrium'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'commit_thought' by specifying 'subagent thought'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions a prerequisite: 'Fails if no Nash round has run yet', providing context for when to use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among the many subagent-related siblings like advance_subagent_round or inspect_utility_matrix.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses failure condition when thought in progress, which is a behavioral trait. No annotations exist, so description carries the burden. Could be more specific about what 'draft' entails (e.g., saves to session, editable).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences; first states purpose, second adds condition and parameter format. No fluff, but could be more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Has output schema so return values are covered. Description provides key usage points but lacks guidance on when to use among many sibling tools and deeper behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds format details for tags and axioms (JSON array or comma/newline list). Does not explain content or session_id parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource ('Draft a new thought') with context ('in the session's current stage'). Differentiates from siblings like commit_thought and critique_current_thought.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly warns against use if thought in progress, providing a precondition. Does not explicitly compare to alternative tools, but the condition is useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is safe to call at any point, implying no destructive side effects, but lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior in error states. The existence of an output schema reduces the need for return value details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, and the structure is effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description provides adequate context for the tool's role and when to call it. However, it lacks explanation of the parameter and edge cases, making it somewhat incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention the sole parameter 'session_id', its purpose, format, or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to infer parameter meaning from context alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it is an authoritative resolver that returns the exact next tool to call and a directive based on session state and mode. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the resolver for next action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states it is safe to call at any point in the session lifecycle, listing various stages. While it doesn't mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for proper usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists sessions but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or behavior when no sessions exist. However, listing is inherently non-destructive and the simplicity partly compensates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence of five words, perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning with no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not indicate what the output contains (e.g., session IDs, full objects) or handle edge cases like empty index. The output schema compensates somewhat, but the description could be slightly more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it correctly states no arguments are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'every session in the index' clearly stating the tool returns all sessions. The name and action clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like start_session, resume_session, etc., which perform different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, the tool's purpose is straightforward enough that usage is implied: use when needing a list of all sessions. Sibling list_modes also exists but is differentiated by name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds value by stating that the server records the new version and its normalized edit distance from the prior one. It does not contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, behavioral record, param format. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and only partial schema info, the description covers purpose, recording behavior, and param format. It is fairly complete but could mention prerequisites or the effect of no critique.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'challenged_assumptions' (accepts JSON array or list) but provides no extra info for required params like 'session_id' or 'new_content'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Rewrite the thought to address the critique,' which is a specific verb+resource action that distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'critique_current_thought' and 'begin_thought'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after receiving a critique but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. It provides no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the primary behavior (advancing cursor), the failure mode (clean with directive), and resultant action (pointing to finalize_session). No annotations exist, so description carries full burden and does so adequately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words: first states purpose, second covers failure behavior. Front-loaded with key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers main behavior and edge case. Could briefly explain 'directive payload' but not essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with no descriptions for session_id. The description does not elaborate on the parameter beyond its name, missing an opportunity to add meaning for the required input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Advance the session's stage cursor to the next stage in its expected_stages.' It differentiates from siblings like finalize_session by specifying stage advancement rather than session termination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when progressing through expected stages and provides guidance when the session is at its final stage by directing to finalize_session. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully explains key behaviors: deterministic, extractive digest, capping via target_tokens using a cheap heuristic, and exclusion of the current stage. It does not mention side effects on session state, but the action is read-only in nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single dense paragraph but front-loads the core purpose. It is efficient but could be structured more clearly (e.g., separate sentences for usage context). No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity, the presence of an output schema, and sibling tools for context (e.g., `summarize_session`), the description provides adequate information. It could mention error conditions or empty history, but is otherwise complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `target_tokens` (default 300, heuristic of len(text)//4) but does not clarify the meaning or purpose of `session_id`, which is the required parameter. Thus, partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool produces a 'deterministic extractive digest of prior stages' committed thoughts', distinguishing it from summarization of the current stage via `summarize_session`. The verb 'compress' and resource 'history' are specific, and the use case for small-context models is explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates when to use the tool (for small-context local models that cannot hold full history) and mentions an alternative (`summarize_session` for the current stage). It does not explicitly state when not to use or list other alternatives among siblings, but the context is clear.
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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool returns a complete state as a JSON-serializable dict, but does not explicitly mention side effects (e.g., read-only nature). It is adequate but not elaborate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. It is concise with no unnecessary words, and the structure is front-loaded effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. The description is adequate for a simple export tool, though it could mention limitations or side effects. Overall, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The single parameter 'session_id' is not explained, leaving agents to infer from its name. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage, but the parameter name is self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('return') and the resource ('this session's complete state as a JSON-serializable dict'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'import_session' by highlighting its suitability for import.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by noting it is suitable for 'import_session', implying a export-for-import workflow. However, it does not explicitly exclude other uses or give when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, no mutation, no network, and lists return components. It does not cover error cases or prerequisites, but for a simple inspection tool this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, direct and to the point, with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys purpose, behavior, and safety.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers its purpose, return content, and safety. An output schema is present, so return values need not be fully detailed. The description is adequate but could mention that the session must exist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter (session_id). The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its role from the tool name and context. This is a gap given the description should compensate for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the Nash scoring state including utility vectors, equilibrium states, and selected winner. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('current Nash scoring state'), and is distinct from sibling tools that modify or manage sessions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly notes 'Read-only (no engine mutation, no network)', which indicates when it is safe to use. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to use it versus other tools, but the safe nature is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It clearly states the action is a record-keeping operation with no filesystem change, which is transparent for a non-destructive tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no redundant information, front-loaded with key actions and constraints. Every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple recording tool with output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could briefly mention what happens after recording or the return value, but the absence is not critical given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description does not explain the session_id parameter. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description should add context such as format or source of session_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool records a user declining to move a session, with a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('session'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'move_session' by indicating this is an alternative action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (when user declines to move) and notes no filesystem change, but does not explicitly state when not to use or reference alternatives beyond implication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only listing operation but does not elaborate on side effects or dependencies. The simplicity of the tool partially mitigates this gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no waste, but it is terse and could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing what is returned). It earns its place but lacks minor formatting.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and for whom (the model to relay to the user), which is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and is fully covered by the description. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns, which is not evident from the empty schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns both modes' descriptions and recommendations, aligning with the tool name 'list_modes'. There are no sibling tools with similar names, so differentiation is not an issue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when the model needs to relay mode information to the user, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that mode becomes immutable once set, which is critical behavioral info. Missing details on failure behavior or permissions, but for a simple tool with output schema, it's adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and condition. No wasted words. Efficiently communicates the essential behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity (2 params, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers core behavior and condition. Minor gaps: does not explicitly state that the session must exist or describe the output/errors, but output schema likely fills that gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds nothing about parameters. While the schema provides enum values for mode, the description does not explain parameter roles or usage beyond the generic 'set a session's mode'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets a session's mode and adds a key condition (only succeeds if no mode set, then immutable). This distinguishes it from other session tools like clear_session or start_session.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear precondition ('Only succeeds if no mode is set yet'), guiding the agent on when to call. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools for related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains failure conditions (destination exists without force, not writable, etc.), tolerant input for 'force', and path expansion. Only minor gap is lack of mention about return value or side effects beyond file move.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is front-loaded with the core action, uses clear sentence structure, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given only 3 simple parameters, the description covers most aspects: path handling, force behavior, failure modes. Output schema exists so return values need not be described. Slightly incomplete on session_id specification, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage (no property descriptions), so description must compensate. It effectively documents 'new_path' (absolute path, directory behavior) and 'force' (tolerant input). 'session_id' is not detailed, but its purpose is clear from context. Overall adds significant meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'move' and the resource 'session file', specifies the key parameter 'new_path', and distinguishes the action from other operations like start or resume. 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies when to use this tool (to move a session's file), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Given that siblings are diverse session management tools, the omission of explicit differentiation is a gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: deterministic, extractive, no LLM calls, and scoping behavior. It is transparent about what the tool does and does not do.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers all relevant aspects: purpose, parameters, behavioral traits, and scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining the scope enum and default. For session_id, it is standard and self-explanatory, so the description is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it produces a deterministic extractive digest of committed thoughts, and distinguishes it from LLM-based summarization. It specifies the scope parameter behavior, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description tells when to use the tool (to get a digest of committed thoughts) and provides details on scope. It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to guide usage among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the input is validated, and in case of ID collision, a fresh ID and save path are assigned automatically without overwriting. It does not detail all possible side effects or prerequisites (e.g., session state), but the collision handling is a critical behavioral trait well explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a concise 4-sentence paragraph. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and expected input. Every sentence adds value: validation, collision handling. No extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given only one parameter, no annotations, and a mention of an output schema (not shown), the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the tool does, how the input relates to export_session, and the collision behavior. An agent can confidently select and invoke this tool based on this description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the 'data' parameter as a 'previous export_session payload' and specifying it can be a dict or JSON string, adding meaning far beyond the schema's type constraints. This clearly tells the agent what to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool 'recreates a session from a previous export_session payload', clearly specifying the verb and resource. It differentiates this tool from siblings like start_session by focusing on importing an exported session, not creating a new one. The mention of 'collision-safe import' adds further specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: after an export_session generates a payload. It notes validation and collision handling, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the sibling list shows start_session for new sessions, which is implicit.
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:

[![deep-think-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ClintMoody/deep-think-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ClintMoody/deep-think-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![deep-think-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ClintMoody/deep-think-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ClintMoody/deep-think-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ClintMoody/deep-think-mcp'

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