DollhouseMCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools have distinct primary purposes, but there is significant overlap in search and content management functions. For example, search_all, search_collection, search_collection_enhanced, and search_portfolio all handle searching with nuanced differences that could confuse an agent. Similarly, portfolio_element_manager and sync_portfolio both manage GitHub sync operations, creating ambiguity in tool selection.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun or verb_noun_noun pattern (e.g., activate_element, browse_collection, get_element_details), which aids readability. However, there are minor deviations like dollhouse_config (noun_verb) and oauth_helper_status (noun_noun_noun), slightly disrupting the overall consistency.
Tool Count2/5
With 38 tools, the count is excessive for the server's purpose of managing AI customization elements and GitHub integration. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple search tools) or are overly specialized, making the interface cumbersome and likely overwhelming for agents to navigate effectively.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for the DollhouseMCP domain, including full CRUD operations for elements (create, edit, delete, list, get), GitHub authentication and portfolio management, collection browsing and installation, and advanced features like validation and relationship analysis. No obvious gaps are present for the intended workflows.
Average 3.4/5 across 38 of 38 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 114 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 5, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under AGPL 3.0.
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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.
View related servers

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Execute') but does not explain what happens during execution (e.g., if it runs a process, returns output, or modifies state), potential side effects, permissions needed, or error handling, which is insufficient for a tool with no 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it could benefit from more detail to improve clarity and completeness.
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 of executing an agent, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how execution works, or any behavioral traits, making it inadequate for proper agent use without additional 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'name' and 'goal' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Execute an agent element with a specific goal,' which includes a verb ('Execute') and resource ('agent element'), but it's vague about what 'execute' entails (e.g., running, triggering, or activating an agent). It does not distinguish from siblings like 'activate_element' or 'deactivate_element,' leaving ambiguity in its specific 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. The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether the agent must be active or configured, and does not mention sibling tools like 'activate_element' or 'deactivate_element' for comparison, leaving usage unclear.
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. The description only states it 'gets detailed information' without specifying what that information includes, whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), what permissions are required, or how errors are handled. For a tool with no 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 sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads 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 the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and operates in a complex ecosystem with many sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'detailed information', how this differs from other element-related tools, or what the expected return format might be. For a tool in this context, more completeness is needed.
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 fully documents both parameters (name and type with enum values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'element' means in context or provide examples. With complete 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get detailed information about a specific element', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('element'), but doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_element_relationships' or 'list_elements'. The description is adequate but lacks specificity about what 'detailed information' entails.
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 'get_element_relationships', 'list_elements', and 'search_all', there's no indication of when this specific detail-retrieval tool is appropriate versus other query tools. The description offers no context about use cases 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether activation is reversible, requires permissions, affects system state, or what happens upon success/failure. 'Activate' implies a state change, but details are missing.
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 directly states the tool's core function without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand 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?
For a tool that likely performs a state mutation (activation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'activate' entails, the outcome, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving critical gaps for an AI 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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying 'name' identifies the element, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.
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 ('activate') and target ('a specific element by name'), which provides a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'deactivate_element' or explain what 'activate' means in this context, preventing 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deactivate_element' or 'get_active_elements'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the element must exist or be in a deactivated state, leaving usage unclear.
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 it creates elements. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response contains. 'Create' implies mutation but lacks details about permissions or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place without redundancy or 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?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'element' means in this context, what happens after creation, or provide any behavioral context needed for safe 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 the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'any type' relates to the 'type' enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb ('Create') and resource ('element'), specifying it can be 'of any type'. It distinguishes from deletion/deactivation siblings but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar creation tools like 'import_persona' or 'submit_collection_content'.
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 'import_persona', 'submit_collection_content', or 'edit_element'. The description mentions 'any type' but doesn't specify when creation is appropriate versus other operations on elements.
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. 'Deactivate' implies a state change rather than deletion, but the description doesn't clarify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to related data, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action 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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'deactivate' entails operationally, how it differs from deletion, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. For a tool that likely changes system state, this leaves significant 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%, with both parameters ('name' and 'type') well-documented in the schema, including an enum for 'type'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 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 clearly states the action ('deactivate') and target ('a specific element'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'activate_element' beyond the opposite action, nor does it explain what 'deactivate' means in this context compared to alternatives like 'delete_element' or 'edit_element'.
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 'activate_element', 'delete_element', and 'edit_element', there's no indication of when deactivation is appropriate versus deletion or editing, nor any prerequisites or context for its use.
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. It states the tool deletes elements and optionally data files, implying destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose whether deletions are permanent/irreversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens to dependencies. The phrase 'will prompt' for deleteData suggests interactive behavior, but this isn't fully explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete an element') and adds only essential qualification. Every word earns its place with zero 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?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover critical context like irreversibility, error conditions, return values, or dependencies. The mention of prompting for deleteData is vague and incomplete. Given the complexity of deletion operations, more behavioral disclosure is needed.
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 three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying 'deleteData' controls associated file deletion. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples, so it 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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('an element'), and specifies the optional scope ('and optionally its associated data files'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'deactivate_element' by emphasizing permanent removal. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'remove' or 'archive' operations that might exist conceptually.
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 'deactivate_element' or 'clear_github_auth'. It mentions the optional data deletion but doesn't explain when that's appropriate or what the consequences are. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Edit an existing element' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether edits are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's 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?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral context, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.
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 with descriptions and an enum for 'type'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of 'field' values or 'value' formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Edit') and resource ('an existing element of any type'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'create_element' or 'delete_element' beyond the edit action, 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 like 'create_element' or 'delete_element'. The description implies usage for editing existing elements but offers no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'returns elements with similarity scores and relationships,' which gives some behavioral context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently cover the tool's purpose and return values. There is no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidelines.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the tool's purpose and return format, but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, and usage context. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured safety hints, it should do more to compensate.
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 the schema provides, such as explaining how 'element_name' is used in similarity calculations or the impact of 'threshold'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find elements that are semantically similar to a given element using NLP scoring (Jaccard similarity and Shannon entropy).' It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('elements'), and methodology ('NLP scoring'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_all' or 'search_collection' that might also find elements.
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 does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'search_all' or 'get_element_relationships', leaving the agent with no context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or details the output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with active elements.
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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse and understand 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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'active' means in this context, what information is returned, or how this tool differs from other read operations like 'list_elements'. For a tool with potential complexity in element management, more context is needed.
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, fully documenting the single parameter 'type' with its enum values. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying 'active' elements, so it meets the baseline score without compensating for any schema 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 clearly states the verb ('Get information') and resource ('currently active elements of a specific type'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_elements' or 'get_element_details', which could offer similar functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest 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, exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'list_elements' or 'get_element_details', leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit 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. It mentions what relationships are included (semantic similarities, verb-based connections, cross-element references) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it 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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists relationship types clearly. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy 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 for a tool with 3 parameters. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., list of relationships with details), potential errors, or usage constraints. For a read operation with moderate complexity, more context is needed to guide the agent 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'relationships for a specific element', specifying the scope includes semantic similarities, verb-based connections, and cross-element references. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_element_details' (which likely returns element metadata) and 'find_similar_elements' (which likely finds similar elements rather than relationships), though it doesn't explicitly name these distinctions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage when relationships are needed, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'get_relationship_stats' or 'search_by_verb'. The agent must infer usage from the name and description 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. It mentions 'import' but doesn't clarify key traits: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, if it's idempotent, or any rate limits. The 'overwrite' parameter hints at mutation behavior, but the description doesn't explicitly warn about potential data loss or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('import a persona') and specifies input types. There's no wasted verbiage, 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 the complexity of importing data (a mutation operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'persona' is in this context, what formats are supported beyond implied .md/.json, or what the tool returns. This leaves significant gaps 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 already documents both parameters ('source' and 'overwrite') thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond implying the source can be a file path or JSON string, which is partly covered in the schema. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('import') and resource ('persona'), specifying it can be from a file path or JSON string. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings (e.g., 'create_element', 'edit_element'), which might also involve persona manipulation, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.
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 'create_element' or 'edit_element'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., file format requirements) or exclusions, leaving 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'lists all available elements' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, permissions needed, or what 'available' means (e.g., active vs. all). This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy 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 doesn't explain what 'list' returns (e.g., format, fields) or behavioral aspects like safety or constraints. For a tool in a complex server with many siblings, this leaves critical gaps for 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 schema fully documents the 'type' parameter with its enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it filters by type, which is already clear from the schema. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('list') and resource ('elements of a specific type'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_active_elements' or 'search_all', which might also retrieve elements, so it's not fully specific to sibling 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 such as 'get_active_elements' or 'search_all'. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent with minimal 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. While 'configure' implies a mutation/write operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether changes are immediate or require a restart, or what happens if configuration fails. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core function. While it could potentially be more structured with separate usage guidance, every word contributes meaning 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?
For a configuration/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address important contextual aspects like authentication requirements, error conditions, whether configuration persists across sessions, or what the tool returns (success/failure indicators). The user must guess these critical behavioral aspects.
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 fully documents all four parameters. The description lists the types of settings (auto-sync preferences, default visibility, submission settings, repository preferences) which loosely maps to the parameters, but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool configures portfolio settings with specific examples (auto-sync preferences, default visibility, submission settings, repository preferences). It uses the verb 'configure' with the resource 'portfolio settings', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dollhouse_config' or 'portfolio_status'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an initialized portfolio), when configuration is appropriate, or how this differs from other portfolio-related tools like 'init_portfolio', 'portfolio_status', or 'sync_portfolio'. The user must infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, if it affects system state, requires permissions, has side effects like clearing caches, or handles errors, leaving significant gaps for a mutation-like 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 mutates system state by reloading from filesystem. It lacks details on behavior, outcomes, error handling, or how it interacts with other tools, failing to compensate for the missing structured data.
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 the single parameter 'type' with its enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter specifies what to reload, aligning with 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 clearly states the verb ('reload') and resource ('elements of a specific type from the filesystem'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'sync_portfolio' or 'get_collection_cache_health' that might involve similar filesystem operations, 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for refreshing cached data, recovering from errors, or when changes are made externally, nor does it reference siblings like 'sync_portfolio' or 'get_collection_cache_health' for context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool renders a template with variables but doesn't describe what rendering entails (e.g., generating output, applying transformations), potential side effects, error handling, or performance considerations. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 front-loads the core action ('Render a template element') and specifies the key input ('with provided variables'). There is no wasted text, 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 complexity of rendering with variables, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the rendering process, output format, error cases, or how variables are interpreted. For a tool that likely produces some output, more context is needed to guide 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 the two parameters ('name' and 'variables'). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'provided variables', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what's already in the structured data.
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 ('Render') and the resource ('a template element'), specifying it uses 'provided variables'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_element' or 'edit_element' by focusing on rendering rather than creation or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'execute_agent' which might also involve processing with variables.
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 a pre-existing template), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'execute_agent' or 'validate_element'. Usage is implied only by the action of rendering with variables, lacking explicit 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 full burden but only mentions the verb trigger pattern mechanism without detailing behavioral aspects like performance, rate limits, error handling, or output format. It lacks information on what 'elements' refer to or how results are structured.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes a brief mechanism explanation, though the second sentence could be more tightly integrated.
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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'elements' are, how results are returned, or any limitations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior and output.
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. The description adds minimal value by providing example verbs ('analyze', 'create', 'debug') but doesn't explain semantics beyond what the schema already states, meeting the baseline for high 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 clearly states the tool searches for elements based on action verbs, specifying the verb trigger pattern mechanism. It distinguishes from generic search siblings by focusing on verbs rather than content or collections, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_all' or 'search_collection'.
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 'search_all', 'search_collection', or 'find_similar_elements'. The description implies usage for verb-based searches but offers no context about prerequisites, limitations, or comparative advantages.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions validation for 'correctness and best practices' but doesn't specify what happens during validation—e.g., whether it returns detailed errors, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or affects system state. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, 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 the complexity of validation (which could involve error reporting or system checks), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., validation results or status) or behavioral aspects, leaving gaps that could hinder correct agent 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 the schema already documents all parameters (name, type, strict). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining validation rules or how 'strict' affects outcomes. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Validate an element for correctness and best practices,' which includes a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('element'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools like 'check_github_auth' or 'get_element_details,' which might also involve validation-like operations, so it lacks 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this should be used before 'create_element' or after 'edit_element,' nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a 'browse' operation, which implies read-only access, but doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The mention of 'content types' adds some context, but critical behavioral traits like pagination, error handling, or data freshness are missing.
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 reasonably concise with three sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, the second enumerates content types, and the third clarifies the 'personas' type. There's no wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the second sentence could be slightly more streamlined by integrating the content type list more seamlessly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., output format, error cases) and usage differentiation from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what the tool returns and how to interpret results would improve completeness.
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 clear parameter definitions (section and type). The description adds marginal value by listing examples of content types (personas, skills, agents, templates) and clarifying that 'personas' is a specific type, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what's in the schema. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Browse content from the DollhouseMCP collection by section and content type.' It specifies the verb ('browse'), resource ('content from the DollhouseMCP collection'), and key parameters (section and content type). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_collection' or 'get_collection_content', which likely have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some implied usage context by listing content types (personas, skills, agents, templates) and clarifying that 'personas' refers to a specific type. It also hints at parameter usage (e.g., type is only used when section is 'library'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_collection' or 'get_collection_content', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get statistics,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, affects system state, or what the output format looks like. 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes specific examples of statistics, making it easy to understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate for a read-only statistical tool. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs or output format, which are important for an agent to use it correctly. It's minimally viable but could be more complete by addressing these gaps.
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 appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't add unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get statistics about the Enhanced Index relationships' with specific details like 'total counts by type, most connected elements, and index health metrics.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Enhanced Index relationships'), but it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_element_relationships' or 'get_collection_cache_health,' which might offer overlapping or related functionality.
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 any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_element_relationships' or 'search_collection_enhanced,' leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit 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. It states 'Creates the repository structure' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires GitHub authentication, what happens if the repository already exists, or if it modifies existing files. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, the second adds implementation detail about structure creation. It's front-loaded with the main action and appropriately sized for the tool's 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?
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., repository URL, success status), error conditions, or dependencies like GitHub authentication. Given the complexity of creating a GitHub repository, more context is needed.
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 three parameters with their types and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying they configure the repository creation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Initialize'), resource ('GitHub portfolio repository'), and purpose ('for storing your DollhouseMCP elements'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'portfolio_status' or 'portfolio_config' by focusing on creation rather than management or configuration.
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 'portfolio_config' or 'setup_github_auth'. It mentions creating a repository structure but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., GitHub authentication) or when this should be called relative to other portfolio tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a 'get' operation which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, what format the information returns in, or if there are any rate limits. The description is adequate but lacks 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise - a single sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. It doesn't specify what 'comprehensive build and runtime information' includes, what format it returns, or whether this is a diagnostic tool versus a status check. Given the absence of both annotations and output schema, more detail would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist, though it could potentially mention that no inputs are required for this operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive build and runtime information about the server'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'portfolio_status' or 'oauth_helper_status' which might also provide server-related information, preventing 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. With siblings like 'portfolio_status' and 'oauth_helper_status' that might overlap in providing server information, there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other status-checking tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool helps with monitoring and identifying issues, it doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (e.g., metrics, error states), whether it requires specific permissions, or any 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 two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds context without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by providing clear value, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters (simplifying input) but no output schema (complicating output understanding), the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and why to use it, but it lacks details on what the health status and statistics include, which is critical for a monitoring tool. With no annotations and no output schema, more behavioral context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, and it appropriately doesn't discuss parameters. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameter information is required, and the description focuses on the tool's purpose instead.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get health status and statistics for the collection cache system.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('health status and statistics for the collection cache system'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_build_info' or 'portfolio_status', which might also provide system status information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage context: 'This helps monitor cache performance and identify any issues with offline browsing capability.' This suggests when to use the tool (for monitoring and troubleshooting), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.
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 mentions 'detailed information' but doesn't specify format, permissions, or potential side effects. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that each add value. The first states the purpose, the second provides usage examples. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read tool with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and usage but lacks details about return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints that would help an agent 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 schema has 100% description coverage, providing format details and examples for the 'path' parameter. The description adds context by mentioning 'personas' as a type of content, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get detailed information about content from the collection' with specific examples for personas. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_element_details' by focusing on collection content rather than general elements, though it could be more explicit about the distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context with examples ('when users ask to see details about a persona'), but it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like 'get_element_details' or 'browse_collection' from the sibling list.
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 what information is retrieved without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. It mentions 'authenticated user's username' in the schema, but the description doesn't elaborate on authentication needs or other operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, followed by specific details, with no wasted words or redundant information.
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 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and outputs. However, as a read operation with no annotations, it lacks details on authentication, error handling, or return structure, which are important for contextual understanding despite the simple parameter set.
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, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the scope of the check (repository existence, elements count, sync status, configuration details), which provides context beyond the single 'username' parameter documented in the schema. With 0 parameters requiring additional semantics, this exceeds baseline.
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 ('Check') and resource ('GitHub portfolio repository'), specifying what information is retrieved (existence, elements count, sync status, configuration details). It distinguishes from siblings like 'portfolio_config' (which likely manages configuration) and 'sync_portfolio' (which performs synchronization), but doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking portfolio status, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'portfolio_config' (for configuration details) or 'sync_portfolio' (for sync status). It provides basic context but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that searches are 'fast metadata-based lookups' which adds useful behavioral context about performance characteristics. However, it doesn't mention important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with no results, error conditions, or authentication requirements for accessing the portfolio.
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 appropriately sized with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and searchable fields, while the second adds important behavioral context about the search mechanism. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with the most critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and how it works. However, it lacks information about return format, result structure, pagination behavior, or error handling, which would be helpful given the complexity of the search functionality.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions searching by 'content name, metadata, keywords, tags, or description' which aligns with the schema parameters, but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's already documented in the comprehensive parameter descriptions in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches a local portfolio by content name, metadata, keywords, tags, or description, and specifies it uses a portfolio index for fast metadata-based lookups. It provides a specific verb ('search') and resource ('local portfolio'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_all', 'search_by_verb', or 'search_collection' beyond mentioning 'local' scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for searching local portfolio elements, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_all', 'search_by_verb', or 'search_collection'. It mentions 'local' scope which provides some context, but lacks clear when/when-not statements or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination, filtering, and sorting, which hints at read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state whether this is a safe read operation, what permissions are required, or how errors or rate limits are handled. For a search tool with multiple parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and usage context but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or result format. For an 'enhanced' search tool, more context on what makes it 'enhanced' compared to siblings would improve completeness, but it meets minimum viability.
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 detailed parameter documentation including enums and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond this, as it only broadly mentions 'pagination, filtering, and sorting' without explaining specific parameters like 'elementType' or 'category.' Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, reflecting adequate but not enhanced semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Enhanced search for collection content with pagination, filtering, and sorting,' specifying the verb (search) and resource (collection content) along with key capabilities. It distinguishes from the simpler 'search_collection' sibling by mentioning 'enhanced' features, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other search tools like 'search_all' or 'search_by_verb.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this for advanced searches when users need specific content types or want to browse results in pages.' This clearly indicates its intended context for complex queries with filtering and pagination. However, it doesn't specify when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling search tools, such as 'search_collection' for basic searches.
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. The description mentions it 'manages' configuration settings and replaces specific tools, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this requires authentication, if changes are persistent, potential side effects (e.g., resetting might affect other operations), or error handling. For a configuration management tool with multiple actions and no annotations, 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 and front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first part and usage guidance in the second, with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The structure is clear and efficient, 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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, multiple actions like 'set', 'reset', 'import'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., what 'reset' does to data, authentication needs), return values, or error cases. For a configuration management tool with no structured safety or output information, the description should provide more context 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (e.g., 'action' with enum values, 'setting' as dot-notation path). The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how 'setting' paths work, what 'wizard' does, or provide examples beyond the schema's hints. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Manage DollhouseMCP configuration settings.' It specifies the verb ('manage') and resource ('configuration settings'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling tools, as none of the siblings appear to be configuration-related (e.g., 'portfolio_config' might be similar but isn't mentioned).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance by stating that this tool 'Replaces set_user_identity, get_user_identity, and clear_user_identity tools.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (as a replacement for those specific tools) and implies alternatives are deprecated. No further context is needed for sibling differentiation, as the guidance is direct and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about 'duplicate detection and version comparison' which isn't in the schema, but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or what the response format looks like (especially problematic since there's no output schema).
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 perfectly concise - two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence adds valuable differentiating context about unified search features. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. While it explains the unified search concept well, it doesn't address critical missing information: no output format description, no behavioral constraints, and no guidance on result interpretation despite mentioning 'duplicate detection and version comparison' - leaving the agent guessing about what the tool actually returns.
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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it mentions searching 'elements' generally but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or interactions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('search across all available sources') and resources ('local portfolio, GitHub portfolio, and collection'), and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning 'unified search with duplicate detection and version comparison across all three tiers' - making it distinct from tools like search_portfolio or search_collection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Search across all available sources') and what it offers ('unified search with duplicate detection and version comparison'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling search tools (like search_portfolio, search_collection, search_by_verb).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool searches ('all content types') and provides a specific use case, but lacks details about behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, or what happens when no results are found. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (since none exist), but could provide more 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 appropriately sized with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first explains the core functionality, the second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration. Minor improvement could be made by slightly tightening the phrasing, but overall it's efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter search function), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but not complete context. It explains what's searched and when to use it, but lacks information about return format, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a search tool with no output schema, more detail about expected results would be beneficial.
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 fully documents the single 'query' parameter with examples. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'keywords' and listing content types, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('search for content') and resources ('collection'), and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it searches 'all content types including personas, skills, agents, prompts, etc.' This provides clear differentiation from other search tools like search_all, search_by_verb, search_collection_enhanced, and search_portfolio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'When a user asks to 'find a persona', search in the collection.' This gives a concrete use case and context for selection, helping the agent distinguish this from alternative search tools. The mention of searching 'all content types' also implies when it's appropriate versus more specialized searches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose (installation from collection to portfolio) and element types, but lacks details on behavioral traits like whether installation overwrites existing elements, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. It provides basic context but misses operational specifics needed for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured: first sentence states the purpose, second provides usage guidelines with examples. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage but lacks completeness in behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling) and output details. It compensates somewhat with examples, but given the tool's complexity (installing elements), more operational transparency would be beneficial.
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 the 'path' parameter's format and example. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying the path corresponds to element types (personas, skills, etc.), which is already covered in the schema's description. 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Install AI customization elements FROM the DollhouseMCP collection TO your local portfolio') and resource ('personas, skills, templates, agents, or memories'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'browse_collection' or 'get_collection_content' which don't involve installation. It explicitly identifies the source (collection) and destination (portfolio) with a directional flow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when users ask to download/install any element type... from the collection' and lists concrete examples (e.g., 'install the creative writer persona'). It clearly distinguishes this from alternatives like 'browse_collection' (for exploration) or 'get_collection_content' (for viewing without installation).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the conditional behavior (read vs. write based on client_id presence), validation requirements, and persistence ('saves it to config'). However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions, permission requirements, or what 'configuration status' includes, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states the core functionality, second explains conditional behavior, third provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of purpose, usage, and basic behavior. However, it doesn't describe what 'configuration status' includes as output or potential error scenarios, leaving some gaps in complete understanding of tool behavior.
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 fully documents the client_id parameter format. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the parameter affects tool behavior (read vs. write mode) but doesn't provide additional semantic context about the parameter's role or implications.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('configure', 'shows', 'validates', 'saves') and resources ('GitHub OAuth client ID', 'configuration status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'check_github_auth' and 'setup_github_auth' by focusing on configuration management rather than authentication checking or initial setup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('when users need to set up OAuth or check their configuration') and provides clear conditional logic for different scenarios (with or without client_id). It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by focusing on configuration rather than authentication flow or status checking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the two-step process (upload then create issue) and support for multiple content types including personas. However, it lacks details on permissions needed (e.g., GitHub auth), rate limits, error handling, or what happens if submission fails. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none provided).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with zero waste: first states the action and process, second gives usage context, third clarifies content scope. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct value (process, when-to-use, inclusivity). Front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a submission tool. It covers purpose, process, usage context, and content types. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like auth requirements, success/failure responses, or community review process, leaving some gaps for 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 schema already documents the single parameter 'content' with its description. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'content name or filename' and giving an example for personas, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('submit', 'uploads', 'creates') and resources ('single element', 'DollhouseMCP community collection', 'GitHub portfolio', 'submission issue'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on community submission rather than local management (e.g., create_element, edit_element) or browsing (browse_collection).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'when users want to share their custom elements with the community.' It distinguishes from alternatives by describing a two-step process (upload to personal portfolio then create submission issue) that differs from tools like install_collection_content or create_element. The mention of 'handles all content types including personas' further clarifies scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is returned (diagnostic details about authentication progress, health, timing, errors) but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description adds value by specifying the diagnostic nature but leaves gaps in behavioral 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first defines the tool's purpose and scope, the second provides explicit usage guidance. No wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage context but lacks details about return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a diagnostic tool with no structured output documentation, the description should ideally provide more information about what specific diagnostic data is returned and in what format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't mention any parameters directly, but with 100% schema description coverage and only one optional parameter (verbose boolean with clear description), the schema handles parameter documentation adequately. The baseline would be 3, but since there's only one parameter and the description focuses appropriately on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details, a 4 is justified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed diagnostic information about the OAuth helper process', with explicit scope covering authentication progress, process health, timing, and errors. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_github_auth or setup_github_auth by focusing on diagnostic status rather than authentication actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use when troubleshooting authentication issues or checking if OAuth flow is working.' This provides clear context for application, though it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or name exact alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it uses 'GitHub's secure device flow - no passwords needed!' which explains the authentication method and security aspect. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., if it modifies user settings or requires user interaction), rate limits, or error handling, leaving some 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 concise and well-structured: two sentences that efficiently cover purpose, method, and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value—the first explains what the tool does and how, the second provides clear invocation triggers—with no wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (authentication setup with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, method, and when to use it. However, it doesn't detail what happens after setup (e.g., success indicators or next steps), which could be helpful for a tool with no output schema.
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 appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4. It focuses on the tool's purpose and usage instead, which is correct for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set up GitHub authentication to access all DollhouseMCP features.' It specifies the verb ('Set up'), resource ('GitHub authentication'), and benefit ('access all DollhouseMCP features'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_github_auth' or 'clear_github_auth', which would be needed for a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Use this when users say things like 'connect to GitHub', 'set up GitHub', 'I have a GitHub account now', or when they try to submit content without authentication.' This gives clear triggers for when to invoke the tool, including specific user phrases and scenarios, with no misleading information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what information is returned (connection status, username, available actions) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this is adequate but lacks depth.
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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and returned information, and another providing usage guidelines. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, though it could benefit from more detail on return format or error cases. For a status-check tool, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools, as no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('check', 'shows') and resources ('GitHub authentication status', 'username', 'actions available'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'setup_github_auth' and 'clear_github_auth' by focusing on status checking rather than configuration or cleanup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use when users ask 'am I connected to GitHub?', 'what's my GitHub status?', or similar questions.' This provides clear context and distinguishes it from authentication setup or clearance tools among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('Remove', 'disconnect') but doesn't specify whether this requires user confirmation, what data gets cleared, or if it's reversible. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps about implementation details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the tool's action, the second provides usage guidelines. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides good context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, it doesn't explain what happens after disconnection or whether there are any side effects, leaving some behavioral questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema already fully documents this. No additional parameter information is needed or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Remove GitHub authentication and disconnect from GitHub') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'check_github_auth' and 'setup_github_auth'. It uses precise verbs and identifies the exact resource being affected.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool, listing specific user phrases ('disconnect from GitHub', 'remove my GitHub connection', etc.) and scenarios (when users want to switch accounts). It clearly differentiates this from authentication setup or checking tools among its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: safety recommendations ('ALWAYS run with dry_run:true first'), mode-specific behaviors (additive never deletes, mirror requires confirmations, backup treats GitHub as source), and sibling tool differentiation. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but covers most operational aspects.
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 efficiently structured with zero wasted sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains modes, provides critical safety advice, and ends with sibling tool differentiation. Every sentence adds essential information for correct tool usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex synchronization tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It covers purpose, modes, safety practices, and sibling differentiation. The main gap is lack of information about return values or what happens after sync completes, but given the operational focus, it's reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining mode semantics ('additive' as safest default, 'mirror' with deletion confirmations, 'backup' mode purpose) and reinforcing the dry_run recommendation, but doesn't provide significant additional parameter context beyond what's already well-documented in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('sync ALL elements') and resources ('local portfolio', 'GitHub repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'portfolio_element_manager' for individual elements. It explicitly defines the scope as comprehensive synchronization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'ALWAYS run with dry_run:true first' for safety, and 'For individual elements, use 'portfolio_element_manager' instead.' It also explains when to use different modes (additive for safety, mirror for exact sync, backup for GitHub as backup source).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the four specific operations with their directions (GitHub→local, local→GitHub), fuzzy matching behavior, and post-download workflow requirements. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, which would be helpful for a GitHub integration 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose and key usage instructions. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage examples, the third lists operations, the fourth explains fuzzy matching, and the fifth specifies post-download workflow. Minor redundancy with the schema (operation descriptions) keeps it from a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description does an excellent job of covering purpose, usage, operations, and key behaviors like fuzzy matching. It mentions follow-up tools but doesn't explain return values or error cases. For a tool with this parameter count and no output schema, slightly more detail on expected outputs would make it 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining fuzzy matching for 'element_name' ('verbose victorian scholar' will find 'Verbose-Victorian-Scholar'), clarifying when parameters are required ('required for download, upload, compare'), and providing context about the 'options' parameter's 'force' setting for skipping confirmations. This goes well beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('manage individual elements', 'download', 'upload', 'list-remote', 'compare') and resources ('local portfolio', 'GitHub repository'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying it's for individual elements (not bulk operations) and provides concrete examples of when to use it versus other tools like 'reload_elements' and 'activate_element'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidelines with clear 'when-to-use' examples ('download X persona from my GitHub', 'upload Y skill to GitHub'), distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning follow-up actions ('use reload_elements then activate_element'), and specifies the scope of operations (individual elements only). It also mentions fuzzy matching as a key feature for usage.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/DollhouseMCP/mcp-server'

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