codivupload-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v2.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources like posts, webhooks, media, or integrations, but there is some overlap in naming patterns that could cause confusion. For example, 'createpost' and 'post_agency_media' both involve creation but target different resources, and the mix of 'create' and 'post' prefixes for similar actions might lead to misselection. However, descriptions generally clarify the target entities.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent with mixed conventions: some use verb_noun (e.g., 'createpost', 'deletewebhook'), others use noun_verb (e.g., 'get_agency_media'), and there are variations like 'post_agency_media' vs. 'createpost'. This lack of a predictable pattern makes the tool set harder to navigate and could confuse agents trying to infer functionality from names alone.
Tool Count2/5
With 30 tools, the count feels excessive for a media/content management server, suggesting potential bloat or fragmentation. While the domain might support many operations, the high number could overwhelm agents and indicate poor scoping, as some tools might be redundant or overly specific (e.g., multiple integration-specific list tools).
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a broad range of operations for media, posts, webhooks, and integrations, including CRUD actions for key resources like posts, media assets, and profiles. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit update or delete for some integration resources (e.g., Pinterest boards), but overall, it provides comprehensive coverage for content management workflows.
Average 2.5/5 across 30 of 30 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
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
- 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

Behavior1/5
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 but fails completely. 'Create Broadcast' doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation (though 'create' implies mutation), what permissions are required, whether it's destructive, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a tool that creates YouTube broadcasts with 7 parameters, this lack of behavioral context is severely inadequate.
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?
While technically concise with only two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to convey necessary information about the tool's purpose and usage. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide sufficient value to justify their inclusion as a complete description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that creates YouTube broadcasts with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a broadcast is in this context, what happens after creation, how it differs from other media creation tools, or any behavioral characteristics. The description fails to provide the context needed to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters. Since the schema does all the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description neither compensates for gaps nor adds meaningful context about how parameters interact or their business significance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create Broadcast' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what type of broadcast (YouTube), what resources are involved, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'listyoutubebroadcasts' or 'post_integrations_youtube_broadcasts_id_stop'. While the tool name suggests YouTube, the description itself provides no clarification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to YouTube broadcasts (listyoutubebroadcasts, post_integrations_youtube_broadcasts_id_stop) and media creation (createpost, uploadmedia), but the description offers no context about when this specific broadcast creation tool is appropriate versus those alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Delete Post' implies a destructive mutation but doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, what happens to associated data, or what the response looks like. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is dangerously inadequate.
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?
While technically concise with only two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide necessary context for a destructive operation. Every word should earn its place, but here the minimal text fails to convey critical information about a tool that permanently removes data.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether the action is reversible, what permissions are needed, or how this differs from similar deletion tools. The agent would be operating this tool blindly with potentially serious consequences.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'Post ID'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Since schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't need to compensate but also adds no value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete Post' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. While it clearly indicates the action (delete) and resource (post), it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'delete_agency_media_id' or 'delete_agency_profiles_id' which perform similar deletion operations on different resources. The description lacks specificity about what type of post is being deleted or the system context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when deletion is appropriate versus updating, or how this relates to sibling tools like 'delete_agency_media_id' or 'deletewebhook'. The agent receives no contextual information about appropriate use cases or constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Stop Broadcast' doesn't indicate whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether the action is reversible, what happens to associated content, or what the response looks like. For a tool that appears to control YouTube broadcasts, this lack of behavioral information is particularly problematic.
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?
While technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide necessary information that would help an agent understand and use the tool correctly. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the minimal description doesn't earn its place by providing adequate guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool (stopping/deleting broadcasts) with no annotations, no output schema, and a description that provides minimal context, the description is completely inadequate. The agent needs to understand the consequences of using this tool, what permissions are required, what happens to the broadcast content, and what to expect as a result - none of which is addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('id' and 'delete_broadcast') clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop Broadcast' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. While it indicates the action (stop) and resource (broadcast), it lacks specificity about what 'stop' means operationally and doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives. The description fails to clarify whether this stops a live stream, ends a scheduled broadcast, or performs another type of termination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or what distinguishes this from other broadcast-related tools like 'listyoutubebroadcasts' or 'createyoutubebroadcast'. The agent receives no help in determining appropriate use cases for this specific stop operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Create Post' implies a write/mutation operation but provides no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, what happens on success/failure, or any behavioral characteristics. The description doesn't even indicate whether this is a simple or complex operation.
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?
While technically concise with only two words, this is an example of harmful under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide any meaningful information that would help an AI agent understand or use the tool. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide sufficient value beyond the tool name itself.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool (implied by 'Create') with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools including other creation operations, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what gets created, where, with what defaults, or what the result looks like. For a tool that presumably creates content in some system, this minimal description leaves critical gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it doesn't contradict the empty schema. Given the zero-parameter situation, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there's no parameter information to provide beyond what the schema already indicates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create Post' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It doesn't specify what type of post is being created, what platform it's for, or what resources are involved. While it does contain a verb ('Create') and resource ('Post'), it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'updatepost' or 'deletepost' beyond the obvious action difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from similar tools like 'updatepost' or sibling creation tools like 'createwebhook' and 'createyoutubebroadcast'. The agent receives no contextual information about appropriate use cases.
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 but offers none. 'List Posts' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what the rate limits might be, or what format the results will be in. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves the agent with significant uncertainty 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide any useful information that would help an AI agent understand or use the tool. Every word should earn its place, but 'List Posts' doesn't provide enough value to justify even its minimal length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'posts' are in this context, what the tool returns, or how to interpret the results. While the schema covers parameter documentation well, the description fails to provide the contextual understanding needed for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no parameter information whatsoever, but the input schema has 100% description coverage with clear documentation for all 4 parameters. The schema describes filtering by status and profile_name, plus pagination with limit and offset. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate despite the description adding zero value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Posts' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding any meaningful information. It doesn't specify what kind of posts (e.g., social media posts, blog posts) or provide any context about the resource being listed. While it's clear this is a listing operation, it fails to distinguish itself from other list-like tools in the sibling set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple other tools in the sibling set that also retrieve posts or related data (getpost, get_agency_media, etc.), but the description offers no differentiation. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or rate limits. The description adds minimal value beyond the obvious implication of deletion.
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?
While concise with two words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It lacks front-loaded critical information (e.g., what resource is affected, behavioral notes). The brevity comes at the cost of clarity, making it ineffective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should explain the deletion's impact, return values, or error conditions. Sibling tools suggest a profile management context, but the description doesn't leverage this for 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'The UUID of the profile to immediately delete'. The description doesn't add any parameter details, but with high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is 4. No compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete Profile' restates the tool name 'delete_agency_profiles_id' in a tautological manner. It doesn't specify what type of profile (agency profile) or provide any distinguishing context from sibling tools like 'delete_agency_media_id' or 'deletepost'. The purpose is vague beyond the basic verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing profile ID), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'get_agency_profiles' for listing profiles or 'post_agency_profiles' for creation. The description provides zero usage context.
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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Create Playlist' implies a write operation but offers no details on permissions required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens upon success (e.g., returns a playlist ID). This leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified, making it inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, 'Create Playlist', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but for this dimension alone, it scores high due to zero verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, side effects, or return values, and doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data. For a creation tool, this minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters (e.g., name, profile_id, loop_enabled, media_asset_ids). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, as it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that media_asset_ids are optional initial bindings) or usage nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is contributed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create Playlist' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'post_agency_playlists' without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of playlist is being created (e.g., for an agency, with media assets) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'post_integrations_youtube_playlists', which might create YouTube-specific playlists. The purpose is vague beyond the basic verb-noun pairing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a profile_id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_agency_playlists' for retrieval or 'post_agency_media' for other creation operations. The description provides zero context for usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create Profile' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, what happens on success/failure, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the response contains. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about how to properly invoke and interpret results from this tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words. While this represents severe under-specification in terms of content, from a pure conciseness perspective it's maximally efficient with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place, and the structure is straightforward (though incomplete).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool (creating profiles) with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'profile' is in this context, what fields beyond username might be relevant, what the tool returns, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool that presumably creates important agency resources, this level of documentation is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('Desired username for the new profile'), so the schema already fully documents the parameter. The description adds no additional parameter information, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. With 0 parameters needing semantic clarification from the description, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create Profile' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'post_agency_profiles'. It doesn't specify what kind of profile (agency profile) or provide any meaningful differentiation from sibling tools like 'post_agency_media' or 'post_agency_playlists'. While it indicates a creation action, it lacks the specificity needed for clear understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools with 'create' or 'post' actions (e.g., createpost, post_agency_media, post_agency_playlists), but no indication of what distinguishes this profile creation tool from those other creation tools. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. 'Update Post' implies a mutation operation but fails to specify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for a tool that modifies data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, 'Update Post', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this brevity comes at the cost of underspecification, but for conciseness alone, it earns full marks as every word serves a purpose.
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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error cases, return values, and usage context. While the schema covers parameters, the overall tool understanding is insufficient for safe and effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Post' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('post') but provides no details about what aspects can be updated or the scope of the operation, making it 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 Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'createpost' or 'deletepost'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing post ID, or distinctions from sibling tools, leaving the agent without 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get Media Details' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the response includes (e.g., format, fields). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with the tool effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with 'Get Media Details', a single phrase that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core action, though at the expense of detail, making it structurally optimal for brevity.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns detailed media information. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly beyond basic parameter input.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'The UUID of the media asset'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it does not mention parameters at all. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics without description enhancement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Media Details' restates the tool name 'get_agency_media_id' in slightly different words, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'Media Details', but lacks specificity about what 'Media Details' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_agency_media' (which likely lists media) or 'uploadmedia'.
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. Sibling tools include 'get_agency_media' (likely for listing media) and 'delete_agency_media_id' (for deletion), but the description does not clarify distinctions, prerequisites, or contextual usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List Playlists' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what the return format is (e.g., paginated list, array), any rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 'List Playlists' is overly concise to the point of under-specification. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks necessary details like scope or context, making it inefficient rather than concise. Every word earns its place, but more words are needed for clarity.
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 complexity (a list operation with potential filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Playlists' refers to (agency vs. integrations), the return format, or behavioral aspects like pagination. For a tool in this context, it should provide more information to be adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the 'profile_id' parameter. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but with high schema coverage and only 1 parameter, this is acceptable. The baseline score of 4 reflects that the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 'List Playlists' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Playlists'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of playlists (agency playlists vs. YouTube integrations playlists) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_agency_playlists_id' (which gets a specific playlist) or 'get_integrations_youtube_playlists' (which lists YouTube playlists). This makes it vague 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use it over 'get_agency_playlists_id' (for a specific playlist) or 'get_integrations_youtube_playlists' (for YouTube-specific playlists), nor does it specify any prerequisites or context for usage. This leaves the agent without clear 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List Broadcasts' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the results come in, whether there's pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words. While it's under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every word earns its place, though the place is minimal. This meets the criteria for maximum conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a listing operation with filtering parameters, the description 'List Broadcasts' is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'broadcast' is in this context, what the return format looks like, or how filtering works. For a tool with 4 parameters and sibling tools that might overlap in functionality, this minimal description leaves too many contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (account_id, profile_id, status, limit) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Broadcasts' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'listyoutubebroadcasts'. It doesn't specify what kind of broadcasts (YouTube broadcasts) or provide any distinguishing characteristics from sibling tools. While the name implies YouTube broadcasts, the description itself adds no clarity beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that might relate to broadcasts (e.g., createyoutubebroadcast, post_integrations_youtube_broadcasts_id_stop), but the description doesn't help differentiate this listing tool from creation or control tools. No context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios is mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a mutation requiring permissions, what happens on success (e.g., returns a webhook ID), rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves critical gaps 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and clear, though it could be more informative. It earns its place but lacks depth, making it concise yet under-specified.
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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a webhook ID), error handling, or behavioral context. Given the complexity of creating a webhook, more guidance is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (url, events, description). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as example events or URL constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Create Webhook Endpoint' clearly states the action (create) and resource (webhook endpoint), but it's vague about what a webhook endpoint does. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'createpost' or 'createyoutubebroadcast' beyond the resource name, lacking specificity about the webhook's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid URL or event types, or compare to siblings like 'listwebhooks' or 'updatewebhook'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID is invalid. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Get Playlist Details') with zero wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it's arguably too brief, bordering on under-specified, which slightly 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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'The UUID of the playlist'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter usage or constraints. Baseline is 3 since the schema adequately covers the 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 'Get Playlist Details' clearly indicates a read operation on playlists, but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_agency_playlists' (plural) or 'get_integrations_youtube_playlists'. It states what it does but lacks specificity about what 'details' includes or the resource context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'get_agency_playlists' (which likely lists multiple playlists) or 'get_integrations_youtube_playlists'. The description implies usage for retrieving details of a specific playlist but doesn't specify 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. 'Get Post Details' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the post doesn't exist (e.g., error handling), or the format of returned details. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond basic purpose.
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 extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get') and resource ('Post Details'). However, it's arguably too brief, bordering on under-specified rather than efficiently concise, which slightly reduces its score from a perfect 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Details' include, how errors are handled, or provide any context about the post resource. While the schema covers the parameter, the lack of output schema means the description should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't. This makes it inadequate for full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Post ID'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Since schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation without needing extra details in the description.
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 'Get Post Details' clearly indicates a read operation on a post resource, which is better than a tautology like 'Get Post'. However, it doesn't specify what details are retrieved or distinguish this from sibling tools like 'listposts' (which likely lists multiple posts) or 'get_agency_media_id' (which retrieves different resource types). The verb 'Get' is generic but appropriate for a read operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this retrieves a single post by ID, unlike 'listposts' which likely returns multiple posts, or clarify that it's for post details rather than other post-related operations like 'updatepost' or 'deletepost'. There's no context about prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified parameters (partial vs full updates), error conditions, or rate limits. It provides only the basic action without operational context.
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 extremely concise at just three words, which is appropriately brief for a tool with well-documented parameters in the schema. However, it's arguably too terse - while it states the core action, it could benefit from one additional sentence about context or usage without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address the mutation's safety profile, expected response format, error handling, or how it differs from related webhook operations. The agent would need to infer too much about this tool's behavior from the minimal description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
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 'Update Webhook Endpoint' clearly indicates a modification action on a webhook resource, which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects are updated and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'updatepost' or 'deletewebhook' - it simply states the basic function without differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'createwebhook', 'deletewebhook', or 'listwebhooks'. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing webhook ID) or contextual factors that would determine when this specific update operation is appropriate versus creating a new webhook or deleting an existing one.
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. 'Delete Media Asset' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with 'Delete Media Asset'—a single phrase that front-loads the core action and resource. There's no wasted language, and it efficiently communicates the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature (implied by 'delete'), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Media Asset' entails, how deletion works, or what to expect post-operation. For a mutation tool with no structured support, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
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 'Delete Media Asset' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (media asset), which is adequate for understanding the basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'deletepost' or 'deletewebhook' (e.g., agency-specific media vs. general posts/webhooks), making it somewhat vague 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'deletepost' and 'deletewebhook' available, it's unclear if this is for agency-specific media, general media, or another context. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for invocation.
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. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify if deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or provides confirmation. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase ('Delete Webhook Endpoint') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the deletion process, return values, error conditions, or dependencies on other tools like 'listwebhooks'. For a mutation tool, this lack of contextual detail is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'Webhook endpoint ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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 'Delete Webhook Endpoint' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (webhook endpoint), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'createwebhook' and 'updatewebhook' by specifying deletion rather than creation or modification. However, it doesn't specify what a webhook endpoint is or the scope of deletion, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing webhook ID), when not to use it, or refer to related tools like 'listwebhooks' for finding IDs. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List Media Assets' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether it returns all assets, supports pagination, requires authentication, or has rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words, front-loading the essential action and resource. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick comprehension.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Media Asset' entails, the format of the returned list, or any behavioral traits like pagination or error handling, which are crucial for a list operation with potential filtering.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'profile_id' documented as 'Filter by specific Profile UUID'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond this, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Media Assets' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Media Assets'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_agency_media_id', which likely retrieves a single media asset by ID, leaving some ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_agency_media_id' (for single assets) or 'uploadmedia' (for adding assets). The description lacks context about filtering capabilities or prerequisites, offering minimal 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. 'List Profiles' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify aspects like pagination, sorting, filtering, or error handling. It lacks details on what 'List' entails (e.g., returns all profiles, limited set) and any constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two words, front-loading the key action and resource. There's no wasted text, making it efficient for quick understanding, though it may be overly terse.
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 complexity (a list operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Profiles' are, the return format, or any behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to infer usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it avoids unnecessary information.
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 'List Profiles' states the action (list) and resource (profiles), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Profiles' refers to (e.g., agency profiles, user profiles) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_agency_media' or 'get_agency_playlists', making it vague 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 Guidelines2/5
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. Sibling tools include other 'get_agency_' operations and general list functions, but the description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.
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 states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error handling for invalid profiles.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., what happens if no boards exist, format of returned data) and doesn't compensate for the missing structured fields, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool uses profile data, but doesn't clarify if both parameters are required or how they interact (e.g., profile_name vs. profile_id).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Pinterest boards' clearly states the action (list) and resource (Pinterest boards). It's specific about what it returns, though it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_agency_media' or 'listposts' which handle different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a Pinterest integration set up) or compare to other listing tools in the sibling set, leaving the agent to infer 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states it 'gets' data (implying a read operation) but doesn't describe what 'posting constraints' entail, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or the format of returned data.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'posting constraints' are, how the data is structured, or any behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full 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?
The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'profile_name'. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate documentation when the schema fully describes parameters, though no additional context is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('TikTok creator posting constraints'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'get_agency_profiles' or 'get_integrations_youtube_categories', which also retrieve integration-specific data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context for its application. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to other 'get_integrations_*' tools or general profile tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output looks like (especially with no output schema). This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list tool, with every word earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely interacts with an external API (YouTube), more context on authentication, rate limits, or data freshness would be needed for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'region' documented as 'ISO 3166-1 region code (default: US)'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining why region matters for categories or providing examples. With high schema coverage, 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List YouTube video categories' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('YouTube video categories'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_integrations_youtube_languages' or 'get_integrations_youtube_regions' which also list YouTube-related data, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for selecting it over similar tools (e.g., 'get_integrations_youtube_languages'), or any exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List YouTube languages' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'YouTube languages' means in this context, what the return values look like, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would need to guess about output format and operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (profile_name and hl). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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 'List YouTube languages' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('YouTube languages'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_integrations_youtube_categories' or 'get_integrations_youtube_regions' that also list YouTube metadata, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context for selecting this over similar sibling tools, or any exclusion criteria. 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('List'), but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what data is returned. For a tool that likely accesses external APIs, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action and resource. There's zero wasted language, making it easy to parse while still conveying the essential purpose.
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 that interacts with YouTube's API through integrations, the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools suggesting complex media management operations, it should explain more about what 'integrations' means, what kind of playlists are returned, and how this differs from other playlist-related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'profile_name'. The schema description 'Profile name' is already adequate, so the description doesn't need to compensate. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List YouTube playlists' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('YouTube playlists'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_agency_playlists' or 'get_integrations_youtube_categories', which are also list operations on related resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing a YouTube integration), comparison to similar tools (e.g., 'get_agency_playlists' for agency-specific playlists), or context about what 'integrations' refers to in the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List YouTube regions' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, output format) and usage guidelines, which are important for an agent to operate effectively. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns and how to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('profile_name' and 'hl') documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
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 'List YouTube regions' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('YouTube regions'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_integrations_youtube_categories' or 'get_integrations_youtube_languages', but the resource specificity ('regions') provides inherent differentiation. The purpose is not vague, tautological, or misleading.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'get_integrations_youtube_categories' or 'get_integrations_youtube_languages' serve similar listing functions for different YouTube data, but the description doesn't help an agent choose between them. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.
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. 'Create YouTube playlist' implies a write operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or what happens on failure. It mentions no output format or success indicators. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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, efficient phrase ('Create YouTube playlist') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to scan and understand immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with 4 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, authentication needs, or return values, which are crucial for an AI agent to use it correctly. The description alone is insufficient for safe and effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, default behaviors beyond the schema's 'default: public' for privacy, or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create YouTube playlist' clearly states the action (create) and resource (YouTube playlist) with a specific verb. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_integrations_youtube_playlists' (read vs. write) and 'post_agency_playlists' (different resource scope), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, profile setup), exclusions, or compare with similar tools like 'post_agency_playlists' or 'createyoutubebroadcast'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, what happens on failure, or whether the upload is destructive to existing media, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool (upload implies write operation), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return values, error conditions, or behavioral context needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not enhancing parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Upload') and resource ('Media to CDN'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'post_agency_media' which might serve similar purposes, missing explicit differentiation.
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 lacks context about prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create Media Asset' implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase ('Create Media Asset') that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for immediate comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool (creating media assets) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, expected inputs (though there are none), return values, or error handling. The agent would need to guess about the tool's full behavior and outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate—it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create Media Asset' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('Media Asset'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'uploadmedia' (which might handle file uploads) and 'post_agency_playlists' (which creates playlists), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate them. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name 'post_agency_media'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'uploadmedia' or 'createpost', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for creating media assets. Without any usage instructions, the agent must infer appropriate scenarios from the tool name and sibling context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns all endpoints at once, supports pagination, requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple list operation. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's function.
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 zero parameters and no annotations, the description is minimally complete for a basic list tool. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain what the list returns (e.g., format, fields). For a tool with no structured data beyond the name, it's adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the response structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
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 'List Webhook Endpoints' clearly states the action (list) and resource (webhook endpoints) with a specific verb. It distinguishes from siblings like 'createwebhook' or 'deletewebhook' by indicating retrieval rather than mutation. However, it doesn't specify scope (e.g., all endpoints vs filtered) which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose this over other webhook-related tools (like 'getwebhook' if that existed), or any context about filtering or pagination. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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