MCP Perforce Server
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.2.1
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: file operations (add/edit/delete/revert/sync/diff) are clearly separate from changelist, client, and stream operations. Even similar-sounding tools like p4_info and p4_status have distinct purposes (config vs workspace status).
Naming Consistency4/5The dominant pattern is p4_<resource>_<action> (e.g., p4_stream_list, p4_client_create) or p4_<verb> for file ops (p4_add, p4_edit). The only outlier is mcp_perforce_version, which uses a different prefix and breaks the p4_ convention.
Tool Count4/5At 25 tools, the set is large but each tool serves a specific need for Perforce workflows. The count is at the boundary of 'heavy' but is justified by the breadth of Perforce features (files, changelists, clients, streams).
Completeness4/5The core CRUD and lifecycle operations for files, changelists, clients, and streams are well covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no stream_delete or changelist_edit, but these can be worked around with p4_raw_command.
Average 3.1/5 across 24 of 25 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose that submit is a mutation that commits changes to the depot, potentially causing conflicts or irreversible actions. It provides none of this, leaving the agent unaware of the tool'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.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is under-specified to the point of being nearly tautological. It is short but does not earn its place, as it fails to convey any operational detail beyond the tool's name.
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 submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It lacks prerequisites, side effects, and error context, making it difficult for an agent to use safely even with full schema coverage.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 'Submit a changelist' uses a specific verb (submit) and resource (changelist), which clearly states what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like p4_changelist_create and p4_move_to_changelist, though it assumes familiarity with Perforce terminology.
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 alternatives, such as requiring a pending changelist or comparing to p4_changelist_create. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'submit'.
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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Show differences' without explaining whether the operation is read-only, what output format to expect, whether files must be opened in a workspace, or how the tool behaves with unopened or non-existent files.
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 only one sentence, which is concise, but it lacks the substance needed to be useful. It is under-specification rather than efficient writing; it does not explain the scope or context of the diff operation, making the sentence too sparse to guide an agent effectively.
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 is the only source of context. It fails to communicate what output the agent will receive, what options are available (e.g., diff format, recursion), or any prerequisites. For a tool operating on source control files, this level of detail is insufficient for correct invocation.
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?
The schema provides descriptions for both parameters ('files' and 'path'), achieving 100% coverage. However, the description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already states, such as clarifying that 'path' is optional and overriding the working directory. It defaults to baseline 3 because schema coverage is high.
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 verb ('Show') and resource ('differences for files'), but it is vague about the type of differences (e.g., workspace vs. depot, between revisions). It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like p4_status or p4_info, which also deal with file states.
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. For example, it does not mention that this tool is preferred over p4_status for viewing content changes, or that p4_raw_command could be used for low-level diff operations. There are no usage conditions or exclusions.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not explain that opening for edit checks out files, makes them writable, or involves changelists. It also does not mention any side effects or requirements like server connection or permissions.
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 concise, though it sacrifices substance; however, for the stated purpose it is appropriately brief.
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 and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not describe the tool's effects on files, the need for a changelist, or what the response contains. This is inadequate for an agent to know the full implications of invoking 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 100%, with both 'path' and 'files' documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'Open' with a clear resource 'files' and context 'for edit in Perforce', distinguishing it from sibling tools like p4_add, p4_delete, and p4_revert. It unambiguously states 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 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, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. It does not mention when to prefer p4_edit over p4_add or p4_revert.
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 burden of disclosing that this is a destructive operation. It merely says 'revert' without specifying what happens to local changes, whether reverting a changelist also deletes it, or whether any confirmation is required. This is insufficient for a tool that modifies workspace state.
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 extremely concise (four words) and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. While brevity is good, the description lacks critical details that would justify replacing the missing narrative, making it more underspecified than concisely comprehensive.
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 three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate with more context about the operation's behavior and use cases. It does not, leaving the agent to infer semantics from the parameter names and sibling tool context, which is incomplete for safe invocation.
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?
The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; for instance, it does not explain how 'path' relates to 'files' or 'changelist' or whether they are mutually exclusive. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Revert files or changelist' clearly identifies the action (revert) and the targets (files or changelist). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like p4_edit or p4_sync, though it could be more explicit about reverting to the depot version.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like p4_delete or p4_raw_command, nor does it explain prerequisites or the effect of reverting on the working directory or changelist.
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 basic action and does not mention side effects, required parent for non-mainline streams, permission needs, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a creation 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 extremely concise at only five words, which makes it easy to parse. However, it is under-specified—it feels like a placeholder rather than a thoughtfully written summary. It lacks necessary details, so the brevity does not fully serve the agent'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 five parameters, three required, a required parent condition, and no output schema. The description provides no context about return values, preconditions, or the distinction between mainline and non-mainline streams. It is incomplete for an agent to use this tool effectively without additional information.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so it neither helps nor hinders parameter understanding.
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 ('Create') and the resource ('a new stream'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like p4_stream_edit and p4_stream_switch. However, it lacks any additional specifics about stream type or usage context, making it clear but minimally informative.
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 such as p4_stream_edit or p4_stream_switch. There are no mentions of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool 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 does not mention side effects, such as requiring a clean workspace, rejecting pending changes, or how the 'force' parameter affects behavior. This is a significant gap 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 short sentence with no unnecessary words, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently detailed. It lacks the context that would make it genuinely useful, so conciseness is not fully achieved.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description must explain behavior, side effects, and usage context. It does not mention what happens to pending changes, whether files are updated, or how 'force' interacts with workspace state, making it incomplete for a tool with potentially destructive operations.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the parameters ('stream', 'path', 'force') are already well documented. The description adds no additional semantic meaning, but the schema baseline of 3 applies because no compensation is needed.
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 ('Switch') and resource ('workspace' to a 'stream'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like p4_client_switch, which could be confused for a similar 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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like p4_client_switch or p4_stream_edit. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without context for tool 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 'Add files to Perforce' without mentioning side effects (e.g., opening files in a changelist, requiring a workspace, permission requirements) or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Add files to Perforce') and is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it sacrifices 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?
Despite having only two parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It lacks any context about return values, prerequisites (e.g., a valid client workspace), side effects, or how this differs from sibling tools like p4_edit. The absence of annotations compounds this incompleteness.
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?
Both parameters are documented in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline score. The schema already explains 'path' as optional working directory and 'files' as supporting wildcards.
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 ('Add') and resource ('files' to 'Perforce'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like p4_edit or p4_delete. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that 'add' is for new files or that it opens files for add in Perforce, leaving some ambiguity about the exact 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that 'add' is for new files not yet in the depot, nor does it differentiate from p4_edit for existing files. The agent must infer usage 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.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description merely restates the function ('Switch to a different client/workspace') without any additional behavioral disclosure. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden, but it omits side effects, error conditions, reversibility, or impact on other Perforce operations.
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 redundant words. It is appropriately brief, though it sacrifices informational content in favor of 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?
The tool has a simple interface, but the description does not explain the effect of the optional 'path' parameter, nor does it describe validation, connection requirements, or what happens to the current working directory. This lacks sufficient context for safe and correct usage.
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 100%, providing clear descriptions for both 'path' and 'client'. The tool description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Switch' and identifies the resource as 'client/workspace', making it clear what the tool does. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like p4_stream_switch and p4_client_edit.
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 versus alternatives such as p4_stream_switch or p4_client_edit. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool shows a stream hierarchy graph, without mentioning whether it is a read-only operation, what the graph output looks like, or any side effects. This is a minimal statement that adds little beyond what the tool name suggests.
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 that is concise and front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or redundant information. However, it is so brief that it lacks helpful elaboration, though this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.
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, no annotations, and only a four-word description, the tool lacks essential context. There is no indication of what the 'graph' output looks like (e.g., ASCII, JSON), whether both parameters are required or mutually exclusive, or any prerequisites for using the tool. This is insufficient for a tool that likely has visual or structural output.
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?
The input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters ('path' as working directory and 'depot' as depot path). The description adds no additional parameter semantics or syntax details, relying entirely on the schema. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
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 'Show stream hierarchy graph' clearly identifies the action (show) and the resource (stream hierarchy graph), distinguishing it from sibling tools like p4_stream_list (which lists streams) and p4_stream_info (which shows details for a single stream). However, 'show' is somewhat generic and does not specify the graph format or output style.
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 regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives like p4_stream_list or p4_stream_info. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context indicating the intended use case. The only clue is the name and description, which implies but does not explicitly state the purpose.
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 only says 'Sync files from the depot' without mentioning that sync may overwrite local changes, the role of the 'force' flag, or any other behavioral traits such as requiring Perforce connection or reporting results. This is a significant gap for a potentially destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded, but its brevity borders on under-specification; still, for the dimension of conciseness, it earns a high 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?
Given that there are no annotations, no output schema, and a potentially destructive operation (overwriting local changes), the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain the sync process, the effect of force, or any expected results, leaving the agent with only the schema parameter descriptions.
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 100%, with each parameter (path, files, force) having a description in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Sync files from the depot' uses a specific verb ('sync') and resource ('files from the depot'), clearly conveying the core action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like p4_revert or p4_status, though 'sync' is a distinct operation in context.
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. It does not mention that sync updates the workspace from the depot, nor does it specify whether it should be used for initial population or to refresh files, or exclude other operations. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
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 only states the action without disclosing side effects, required permissions, error behavior, or return values. For a mutating 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, with zero wasted words. However, it omits potentially useful context, though that is not penalized heavily here.
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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks context about return values, operational scope, or how the client creation fits into the broader Perforce workflow. The schema describes parameters but the tool-level context is missing.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter details, but the schema provides clear descriptions for all 7 parameters, satisfying the need for parameter meaning.
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?
Description states 'Create a new client/workspace' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like p4_client_edit and p4_client_delete. The action is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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. It does not mention when to prefer creation over editing or switching clients, nor any prerequisites or preconditions.
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. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what specific information is returned, whether it requires a client/connection, or how it behaves if the stream does not exist. 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clean sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is slightly generic and could include more useful context without losing conciseness.
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 is too vague to be fully contextual. It states 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what fields are returned, how it differs from p4_stream_graph, or under what conditions it should be used. The tool is simple, but the description insufficiently equips an agent to make an informed decision.
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 100% — both 'path' and 'stream' have descriptions in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but it doesn't need to since the schema already documents the parameters adequately.
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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific stream.' The verb 'Get' and the resource 'specific stream' make it distinct from sibling tools like p4_stream_list (which lists streams) and p4_stream_graph. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the verb 'Get' — one would use this when needing details about a single stream. However, the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like p4_stream_list or p4_stream_graph, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
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 all behavioral disclosure. 'Mark' hints at a pending non-destructive action, but it does not explain effects on local files, changelist association, permissions, or reversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. No filler or redundancy.
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 deletion-related tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too minimal. It does not explain how 'path' and 'files' combine, what 'mark for deletion' actually does, or what the agent should expect in return.
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 100% with descriptions for both 'path' and 'files'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 phrase 'Mark files for deletion' and names the resource 'Perforce'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like p4_add, p4_edit, and p4_revert.
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 p4_revert or p4_client_delete. There are no context hints, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Move files' without mentioning side effects, required file state, permissions, or whether the changelist must already exist. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Move', and contains no filler words. Every word earns its place for the basic action it communicates.
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 provide more operational context. It omits critical details such as whether files must already be open, whether the changelist must exist, and what happens on failure, making it incomplete for a mutation 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?
The schema already provides 100% description coverage for all parameters (path, files, changelist). The description does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
Description clearly states the action: 'Move files to a specific changelist'. The verb 'move' and resource 'files' are specific, and the target 'changelist' distinguishes it from sibling tools like p4_add or p4_edit.
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, prerequisites (e.g., files must be open) or context. The description is a bare instruction with no usage context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Edit', which implies mutation, but it does not reveal that editing may open an interactive editor when 'spec' is absent, that it requires an existing stream, or what happens to existing settings. No safety or side-effect information is given, making this a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose with zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a tool with a clear action and resource.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the concept of a stream specification, the effect of editing, or when to choose this over related tools. The schema partially fills gaps (e.g., mentions editor behavior), but the description alone leaves the agent without sufficient context to use it correctly.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as the optional 'path' meaning or the format/validation of 'spec'. It neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's 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 'Edit stream specification' clearly states the verb 'Edit' and the resource 'stream specification', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like p4_stream_create, p4_stream_info, and p4_stream_switch. The purpose is immediately understandable 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for modifying an existing stream, nor does it note prerequisites or contrast with p4_stream_create or p4_stream_switch. There is no contextual usage direction.
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 basic action and says nothing about return format, error behavior, wildcard semantics, or whether a Perforce connection is needed. This is a significant transparency gap for a listing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero wasted words. It is concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information.
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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the result looks like (e.g., list of stream names or paths) and how the parameters combine. It does neither. The 100% schema coverage helps but does not compensate for the missing return-value context.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (path, depot, filter) already explained. The description adds minimal value beyond aligning with the 'filter' parameter, but it does not clarify parameter interactions or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 tool's action: 'List all streams or streams matching a pattern.' The verb 'list' and resource 'streams' define the primary purpose, and the mention of pattern matching adds scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like p4_stream_info or p4_stream_switch, which is a slight gap.
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 listing streams (both all and filtered by pattern), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as p4_stream_info. There are no stated exclusions or prerequisites, so the usage context is only implicitly understood.
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. It only states the action itself without disclosing side effects, prerequisites (e.g., client workspace), or that it creates a pending changelist. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 has simple parameters and no output schema, but the description is minimal. It does not explain the changelist's state (pending vs submitted) or the role of the path parameter, leaving gaps in context.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, simply restating that a description is needed.
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 ('Create') and resource ('a new changelist'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like p4_changelist_submit or p4_move_to_changelist. It also hints at the required description parameter.
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 typical workflows, such as creating a pending changelist before adding files, nor references to sibling 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 must carry the behavioral transparency burden. 'Delete a client/workspace' states the action but does not disclose consequences such as irreversibility, impact on open files, or the behavior of the 'force' parameter beyond what the schema already mentions. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the operation name.
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 unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. While it is very brief, it earns a high score for conciseness, though it sacrifices completeness (covered elsewhere).
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 destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the one-line description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens on success/failure, the effect on the workspace, or the role of the optional path and force parameters (though the schema covers these). The description lacks enough context for an agent to fully understand the operation's implications.
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 100%, and the schema provides descriptions for all parameters (client, path, force). The tool description itself does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description aligns with the 'client' parameter but offers no extra semantic 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 'Delete a client/workspace' uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('client/workspace'), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like p4_client_list, p4_client_create, and p4_client_edit. The purpose is immediately clear 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the user wants to delete a Perforce client/workspace. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when this tool should be used instead of alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context from sibling tools makes the use case apparent, but explicit guidance 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default scope (current user) but omits any details about safety, return format, or behavior when filters are applied. This is insufficient for an agent to predict side effects or edge cases.
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 with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without wasted space.
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 description is sufficient for basic tool selection but lacks context about return values (no output schema) and the impact of the path parameter. The schema covers parameter definitions, but the overall operational context is incomplete.
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?
The schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (clients/workspaces), and the scope (for the current user). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like p4_client_info and p4_stream_list by specifying the resource type and the listing 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context. It merely states the function, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Show', which implies read-only, but does not state this explicitly or mention any requirements like needing a Perforce workspace or network access. Error conditions or side effects are not addressed, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action clearly and concisely. There is no redundant or unnecessary wording, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.
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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), but the description does not mention what information is returned, any prerequisites, or behavioral nuances. It is adequate for a basic understanding but leaves gaps in expectations and environment requirements.
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?
The schema describes the single 'path' parameter as 'Working directory path (optional)', giving 100% coverage. The description adds context by connecting the path to the 'current directory' scope, but it does not provide additional detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's action: 'Show Perforce configuration info for current directory.' It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like p4_client_info and p4_status, which focus on client or stream details. The verb 'Show' and resource 'configuration info' make 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like p4_client_info or p4_status. The description only states what the tool does, without specifying context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction on tool 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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does (gets status) but does not explicitly say whether it modifies the workspace, whether it requires a configured workspace, or what the return format looks like. This is a notable gap for a tool with no annotation fallback.
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 is front-loaded with the key action and object. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning the highest score for efficiency.
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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the core function. However, it lacks usage guidance and explicit behavioral transparency, so the description is only minimally viable. It does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations or provide enough context for an agent to use it optimally.
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?
The input schema already covers the single parameter ('path') with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema description coverage.
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 ('Get') and names a clear resource ('current P4 workspace status and pending changes'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes this from sibling tools like p4_add or p4_edit, which focus on making changes rather than querying status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description imply it is for checking status, it does not state any context, exclusions, or mention of when a different tool (e.g., p4_info or p4_diff) might be 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions, whether the client must exist before editing, or what happens when the spec parameter is omitted. The schema description for 'spec' adds a hint that current spec is shown if not provided, but the main description remains opaque about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. It is appropriately sized with no redundant information.
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 with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of the 'path' parameter, what constitutes a successful edit, or how the tool behaves when 'spec' is not provided. The schema description for 'spec' covers one nuance, but overall the description lacks important usage context.
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?
All three parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The main description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, though it reinforces that 'client' must be an existing client/workspace name.
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 tool edits an existing client/workspace specification, using the specific verb 'Edit' and a resource type that distinguishes it from sibling tools like p4_client_create or p4_client_delete.
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 'Edit an existing' implies this tool is for modifying existing client specs, not for creating or deleting them, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'Get detailed information' but does not specify whether this is read-only, what information is returned, or any side effects. The term 'detailed' is vague and adds little transparency beyond the tool's purpose.
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 that is concise and directly states the tool's function. No unnecessary words or repetition; it earns its place.
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 two optional params and no output schema, but the description lacks detail on what 'detailed information' includes. Since no output schema exists, the description should compensate by explaining return values or typical fields, but it doesn't. The description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
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?
The input schema fully describes both parameters (path and client) with their optionality and default behavior. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'detailed information about a specific client/workspace'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like p4_client_list (which lists clients) and p4_info (which likely provides server or general info), making its 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 retrieving details of a specific client/workspace, and mentions that the current client is used if not specified. However, it doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool executes a raw command and returns stdout/stderr, but it does not warn that this may run arbitrary, potentially destructive, p4 commands or that no safety checks are performed. This is insufficient for a tool that can mutate the Perforce depot.
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: 'FOR DEBUGGING: Executes a raw p4 command and returns stdout/stderr.' It is concise, with no superfluous words, and every part adds value by indicating purpose and 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?
The tool is a raw command executor with no output schema and only two parameters, but the description is too thin. It lacks critical context such as the danger of running arbitrary p4 commands, the role of the 'path' parameter in the execution context, and any caution about using it in production. Despite the simple interface, the description is incomplete for a tool that can trigger arbitrary command-line operations.
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 100% for both parameters (path and command), and the description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not compensate with extra context about how the parameters interact or affect execution, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool executes a raw p4 command and returns stdout/stderr, using a specific verb and resource. The 'FOR DEBUGGING' prefix distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform specific p4 operations, making its 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 Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'FOR DEBUGGING' provides clear context for when this tool should be used, and the existence of many specialized sibling tools implies it is for cases not covered by them. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 burden. The verb 'Show' indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose whether this queries local or remote state, nor the return format. It is minimally transparent for a simple informational tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the action and target.
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 trivial complexity (0 params, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. However, it does not explicitly state what the returned version refers to (MCP server vs Perforce server), leaving slight ambiguity.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema is complete. Per guidelines, 0 params earns a baseline of 4; the description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.
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 the verb 'Show' and identifies the specific resource 'MCP Perforce server version', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform operations. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternatives, but the tool is a simple version query with no obvious alternative among siblings. The intended use is implied by the purpose.
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/Cocoon-AI/mcp-perforce'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server