MAL MCP Server
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.10.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear separation between anime and manga operations. Even similar tools like get_anime_recommendations and get_recent_anime_recommendations are well-disambiguated by their descriptions.
Naming Consistency5/5All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., search_anime, get_anime, update_my_manga_status). No mixing of styles, making the set predictable for an agent.
Tool Count2/5With 50 tools, the set is far above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While each tool serves a specific purpose, the sheer volume can overwhelm an agent and suggests the scope could be consolidated.
Completeness5/5The tool surface covers nearly all aspects of MyAnimeList: search, details, lists, reviews, recommendations, characters, staff, news, schedules, random entries, and full user list management with authentication. No obvious gaps exist for the domain.
Average 4.5/5 across 50 of 50 tools scored. Lowest: 3.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 227 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
ReadOnlyHint and openWorldHint are already present, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them by stating that the tool requires a MyAnimeList login and operates on the authenticated user's own data. This helps an agent understand that authentication state and identity are relevant.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence that front-loads the key action and resource, then adds the necessary login constraint. No filler or redundant restatement exists.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a complete input schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description provides enough context for a safe read-only tool. It could be slightly stronger by naming the closest sibling or confirming this is not the anime-list variant, but nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description does not repeat or extend parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema handles the parameter burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('authenticated user's own manga list'), and the scope ('own'). It is distinct from general manga lookup tools like get_manga, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from its closest sibling get_my_anime_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use case is implied: use this when the agent needs the current user's own manga list. It also notes the prerequisite of a MyAnimeList login, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_my_anime_list or search_manga.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description extensively discloses behavioral traits: transparent retry via official API with filtered parameters silently dropped, enforced sfw client-side, and nonsense queries returning unrelated anime. This goes far beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is verbose and contains multiple paragraphs with detailed fallback behavior, which adds value but could be more concise. The main purpose is front-loaded, but the length may hinder quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (20 parameters, output schema, annotations), the description covers important edge cases and fallback behavior comprehensively. It complements the schema well, though some parameter interactions are only implied in the fallback notes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with individual parameter descriptions, so the tool description does not add much meaning beyond that. It mentions that many filters are ignored during fallback, which is behavioral context rather than parameter-specific semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches MyAnimeList anime by keyword and returns compact summaries with mal_id and pagination info. It distinguishes from sibling tools implicitly by specifying 'anime', but does not explicitly differentiate from other search tools like search_manga.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it is for searching anime, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. It only describes behavior during fallback.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so no contradiction exists and the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the returned record contains the mal_id that feeds get_person. It does not add constraints such as pagination behavior, result limits, or failure modes, but for a simple search tool with a bundled output schema, the added context is modest and no more than a 3.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb and scope; the second states the returned identifier and its downstream consumer. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only external search with six self-documenting parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete: purpose, entity scope, and return-usage linkage. The only omitted piece would be explicit with large result sets, but pagination parameters are present in the schema. There is nothing an agent needs for selecting this tool that is materially missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (q, page, sort, limit, letter, order_by) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only 'by name,' which restates what q already says. At 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies. The description is fine, but everything semantic is already in a structured form.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('MyAnimeList people'), and further narrows the entity with examples: voice actors, directors, authors. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools (search_anime, search_manga, search_characters) by entity, and from get_person by operation. The agent can tell exactly what this tool covers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the key workflow by saying the tool 'Returns the mal_id needed by get_person,' which tells the agent how to chain it with the downstream fetch. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, leaving the choice between search_people and other search tools to inference. This is implied usage, not explicit routing.
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?
Annotations already set readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: pagination at roughly 100 per page and the use of `page` for long-running season. It does not cover every nuance like rate limits, but for read-only list pagination this is solid additional transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences that each carry useful information: the operation, the pagination behavior, and the source of the identifier. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it ideal for an AI agent to read quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a small, simple tool with a read-only annotation, an output schema, and just two parameters. The description covers operation semantics, pagination, episode-related return values, and how to source the required id. It does not need to explain output shape because an output schema exists; only minor details like default sort order are omitted but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes both parameters: 'id' as a MyAnimeList numeric ID and 'page' as a 1-based page number. The description says 'mal_id' and 'use `page` for long-running series', which adds mild usage color but does not significantly expand parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List an anime's episodes (by mal_id) with titles, air dates and filler/recap flags.' This clearly conveys what the tool returns. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_anime_videos or get_anime_schedule because of the focus on episodes and filler/recap flags, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use this to fetch a specific anime's episode list, get mal_id from search_anime, and use page for long series. It does not explicitly state when *not* to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives, but the usage context is present enough to guide an agent.
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?
Annotations already declare this as a read-only operation. The description adds useful detail about including roles and using mal_id, but it does not disclose deeper behavioral traits such as pagination, return size, or sorting. The description is consistent with the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the ID-source instruction is exactly the kind of practical information that earns its place. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what the tool returns, what input is needed, and how to find that input. There is no major missing information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that 'id' is a MyAnimeList numeric ID. The description adds value by clarifying that the ID is the manga's mal_id and pointing the agent to search_manga as the source for obtaining it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List the characters of a manga'), the resource ('manga'), and the kind of detail returned ('with their roles'). It does not explicitly compare against the sibling get_anime_characters, but the resource 'manga' differentiates the tool well enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells the agent how to obtain the required ID ('Get the mal_id from search_manga'), which is clear and actionable. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use the tool or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the 'List' verb aligns with that. The description adds useful scope around roles and voice actors, but does not disclose extra behavioral traits like pagination, missing-id handling, or malformed-data behavior. Since output schema exists, this is acceptable though minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and content, and the second gives actionable guidance for obtaining the required input. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple one-parameter tool, and the description leaves no important gap: it identifies the target resource, the result's contents, and how to acquire the required mal_id. The output schema and annotations carry the remaining return-value and safety context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully documents the only parameter as 'MyAnimeList numeric ID.'. The description's 'by mal_id' reinforces this but does not add new constraints, units, examples, or meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('characters of an anime'), and the key output contents ('roles and Japanese voice actors'). The qualifier 'by mal_id' and the pointer to 'search_anime' make it easy to distinguish from manga, people, or general-character tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly directs the agent to obtain the required id from 'search_anime', which is a concrete usage prerequisite. It does not name the manga equivalent as an alternative, but the anime-specific wording and id source provide enough selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral info beyond listing the output types. No extra details on pagination or auth, but acceptable given annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action and purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with output schema present, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and output (MAL IDs). No gaps given the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not add additional parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'List manga genres/themes/demographics with their MAL IDs' – specific verb+resource. Also mentions its purpose for search_manga, distinguishing it from siblings like get_anime_genres.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use this to discover the numeric IDs that the `genres` parameter of search_manga expects' – clear usage context. Does not mention when not to use, but the directive is sufficient.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-obvious context: 'No official-API fallback exists for this tool — it always needs Tenrai itself to be reachable.' This is exactly the kind of operational caveat that helps an agent plan for failure and isn't part of the annotations or schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, both meaning-bearing. The first states the core behavior and primary use case; the second is a valuable caveat. No fluff, no repetition of schema materials, and the most important purpose information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For this tool's simplicity — 2 optional params, full schema coverage, provided output schema, and annotations indicating read-only/open-world — the description is enough. Combined with the systematic annotations and schema, an agent has everything it needs to invoke and interpret the result. The usage context and external dependence caveat round out the picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and input schema already provides rich detail on the sfw vs sfw_strict distinction, including exactly how they differ. The description adds no parameter-level meaning ('full details' refers to the output, not to parameter usage); the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb+resource: 'Return one random anime (full details).' The word 'random' plus the entity type 'anime' inherently differentiates it from siblings like get_random_manga, get_random_character, and other anime list tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling the way the strongest definitions do.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Good for discovery / suggestions' gives an explicit use case, making it clear when this tool is appropriate. It does not, however, give exclusion cues or name alternatives (e.g., 'use get_anime for a specific title' or 'use get_top_anime for curated rankings'), so slightly less than a 5.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about listing roles but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or performance. With annotations present, the description adds minimal extra value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Information is front-loaded: action, scope, and role types are immediately clear. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the tool's purpose and relationship to a sibling. Minor gap: it doesn't describe the return structure, but output schema covers that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single required id parameter. The description adds meaning by specifying that the id is a MyAnimeList numeric ID (mal_id) and that it can be obtained from search_anime, which goes beyond the schema's description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists production staff of an anime by mal_id, specifying roles like director and composer. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_anime_characters, which covers voice actors, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context by indicating that the mal_id should come from search_anime and that this tool complements get_anime_characters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools beyond the mentioned sibling.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. Description adds that it lists items with MAL IDs, providing behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and purpose. Concisely conveys what the tool does and why to use it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It fully covers the tool's purpose and usage for its simple parameter set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage on the single parameter, including enum and description. Description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it lists anime genres/themes/demographics with MAL IDs, and distinguishes its purpose from sibling by explaining it supplies IDs for search_anime's `genres` parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use this tool (to discover genre IDs for search_anime). It does not exclude other uses but provides clear context, though it could mention alternative for manga (get_manga_genres).
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?
Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context: broadcasts only appear for currently-airing shows, defaults, timezone (JST), and pagination details, going beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no fluff. The main action ('Get the anime broadcast schedule') is front-loaded, and all critical details (timezone, optional day filter, defaults) are included efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present and all behavioral traits disclosed (timezone, conditional fields, pagination), the description is fully sufficient for an agent to understand and correctly invoke the tool without gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The tool description only adds a note about 'broadcast' being present for currently-airing shows (an output detail), so no extra parameter semantics are provided. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the anime broadcast schedule in JST, with optional weekday filtering, distinguishing it from search/detail tools. It also mentions special buckets 'unknown' and 'other' for shows without fixed slots, adding specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains optional filtering by weekday and default pagination behavior. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes its purpose distinct enough for proper selection.
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?
Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. Description adds the returned fields (MAL IDs, manga counts) but no additional behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences: first states function and output, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With output schema present, description covers core data, pagination implied, and explains integration with search_manga—complete for a listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema provides full parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the 'q' parameter's purpose and tying output to search_manga usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool lists/seraches magazines with MAL IDs and manga counts, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_manga which uses the ID as a filter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises using 'q' for name search and looking up IDs for search_manga's filter. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but provides clear usage context.
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?
Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs to add non-redundant behavior details. It does: it discloses the authentication dependency and indicates the returned entries are the user's personal scores/progress. This is consistent with the annotations and adds beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences occupy about twenty-one words with zero filler. The action, resource, and scope come first, and the auth precondition follows in the second sentence. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With all four parameters documented in the schema, an output schema present, and readOnly/openWorld annotations covering safety, the description only needs to convey the data domain and prerequisites — which it does. An agent deciding whether to call this tool has everything needed: scope, auth state, and expected entry content.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: sort, limit, offset, and status each carry their own type, constraints, and semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions status/score/progress, mapping loosely to the status parameter, but adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, keeping this at baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description pairs a specific verb ('Get') with a precisely scoped resource ('the authenticated user's own anime list') and enumerates the per-entry fields (status, score, progress). The 'authenticated user's own' framing cleanly distinguishes it from public-catalog siblings like search_anime, get_top_anime, and get_anime.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear usage context: it targets the logged-in user's personal list, and it states a precondition ('Requires a MyAnimeList login') that tells the agent when this tool can be invoked. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios (e.g., 'for public ranking data use get_top_anime').
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds context about extra return fields (about text, external links) beyond annotations, but does not describe other behaviors like pagination or limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose and key outputs, second sentence provides source for ID. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple tool (1 param, output schema exists), description adequately covers what it returns and where to get the ID. No missing context for agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with basic description. Description adds value by specifying the source of the ID ('Obtain the mal_id from get_producers'), aiding correct parameter selection.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb ('Get'), resource ('producer/studio'), and what additional details it returns ('about text and external links') beyond the list tool. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_producers'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells user to obtain mal_id from 'get_producers', implying proper usage order. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context sufficiently guides.
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?
Annotations already declare 'readOnlyHint: true' and 'openWorldHint: true', so the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds context about returning MAL IDs and counts, but does not elaborate on pagination, sorting behavior, or other relevant details. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate – adequate but not exemplary.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and wastes no words. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second gives usage guidance and references the sibling tool for further action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere) and annotations declare read-only and open-world behavior, the description is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It covers the primary use case, search, and directs to the sibling tool for deeper details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The description notes the 'q' parameter for search, but the schema already describes it as 'Filter by name.' No extra semantic value is provided for other parameters. Baseline 3 is correct.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List or search') and the resource ('anime producers and studios'), and explicitly mentions the output includes 'MAL IDs and counts'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_producer' by referencing it as a different tool for full profiles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does 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 `q` to search by name') and provides a clear alternative ('then get_producer for one studio's full profile'). This helps the agent know when to choose this tool over the sibling 'get_producer'.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: there is no official-API fallback and the tool always requires the Tenrai service to be reachable. This is meaningful operational detail for an agent to decide whether to rely on the call.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with no filler: what the tool returns, when to use it, and an operational caveat. The most important information appears first, and every sentence contributes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple random-lookup tool with zero required parameters, an output schema, and fully documented optional parameters, the description is complete. It names the use case, clarifies discovery/suggestion purpose, and flags a real availability constraint that is not otherwise visible.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are already documented in the schema with rich semantics explaining sfw and sfw_strict. The tool description itself does not add parameter details, but it does not need to because the schema carries the full burden effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return one random manga (full details).' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_random_anime, get_random_character, and get_random_person, and from get_manga/search_manga which require a specific target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states a clear use case: 'Good for discovery / suggestions.' It also gives practical operational guidance about reachability. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the appropriate context is still clear for an agent deciding between random-pick and search-style 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering safety. Description adds that it lists existing data, which is consistent but adds no new behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded and conveys the core purpose and usage hint efficiently, with no extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides everything needed: purpose, output type, and relation to another tool. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no parameters, so the description isn't required to explain parameters. Baseline 4 applies as schema coverage is 100% and no enrichment is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description specifies 'list the years and seasons that have anime data', clearly stating the tool's purpose and output, and distinguishes itself from siblings by linking to get_seasonal_anime.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states the tool's purpose is to provide valid arguments for get_seasonal_anime, guiding when to use it. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but the context is well-defined.
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?
Annotations already cover read-only and open-world characteristics, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds useful context—that the ranking is global ('ranked overall') and limited to people categories—but does not disclose retrieval, pagination, or other behavior beyond what annotations and schema already make clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the routing to search_people is presented immediately after the main statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple read-only listing tool with optional pagination parameters and an output schema. The description plus schema fully covers what an agent needs to know: what the tool returns, when to use it, and when to use the sibling search_people instead.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both page and limit already documented. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema already provides meanings, defaults, ranges, and pagination behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('the most popular/favorited people'), and further clarifies the domain as voice actors, staff, and authors. It also distinguishes itself from search_people, which is the sibling used for exact-name searches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says to use search_people when looking up a specific person by name, providing a clear when-not-to-use condition and alternative. The 'ranked overall' phrasing communicates that this tool is the right choice when the agent needs a broad popularity ranking rather than targeted lookup.
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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it's a mutation with external side effects. The description adds context that it's an OAuth callback, but does not elaborate on specific side effects, failure modes, or required permissions. This is adequate but not exemplary given the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: first states what the tool does, second provides usage guidance and input format note. Every sentence is functional with no wasted words, making it efficiently front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple OAuth callback tool with one required parameter and a known output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and input format. It does not need to explain return values as an output schema exists, making it complete for the complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the tool description merely rephrases the schema's parameter description ('by submitting the URL... or a bare code string'). No additional meaning is provided beyond what the schema already offers, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool completes a login initiated by login_mal by submitting the redirect URL. It uses specific verb+resource ('complete login'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool login_mal, which starts the login.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use this when login didn't complete automatically — e.g. the server runs on a remote/headless host.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool versus alternatives, and implies it should not be used when login completes automatically.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even though annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, the description goes beyond them with a specific, non-obvious behavioral fact: 'deleted: true whenever MAL accepts the request — including when the manga was never on the list to begin with.' It also warns that the action cannot be undone and clarifies that success does not prove prior existence, which is critical, non-obvious information for an agent at runtime.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent clause earns its place by disclosing irreversibility, the idempotency edge case, a confirmation alternative, and the auth requirement. The middle sentence is dense with parentheticals, but nothing is wasted filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter destructive write with a rich output schema and annotational context, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, edge-case return semantics, a verification path, and authentication requirements. Combined with annotations and schema, there's no meaningful gap an agent would need to guess at.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%; the manga_id property is well documented in the schema with type, bounds, sourcing guidance, and a naming mismatch caveat. The description text itself adds no separate parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 holds since the structured schema is doing the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb 'Remove' and an explicit resource ('manga entry from the authenticated user's list'). The resource scope cleanly distinguishes it from both the read-only get_* siblings and from its direct counterpart delete_my_anime_list_item, while the name and title reinforce that it targets manga, not anime.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description names the sibling get_my_manga_list as the correct alternative when confirmation is needed ('check get_my_manga_list first if you need to confirm'), and states the login prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly contrast with update_my_manga_status or delete_my_anime_list_item, but the scope is clear enough that this is a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds critical behavioral detail: 'No official-API fallback exists for this tool — it always needs Tenrai itself to be reachable.' This enriches transparency beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, alternative, and critical dependency. Front-loaded with core function, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Description explains the feed type, alternative, and fallback. Pagination details are in schema. Minor gap: does not mention that the feed is 'recently-submitted' order, but that is implicit. Overall complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not repeat parameter details, but schema itself provides adequate descriptions for sfw, sfw_strict, page, limit. Description adds no additional parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'site-wide feed of recently-submitted anime recommendation pairs' with commentary, and explicitly contrasts with sibling tool get_anime_recommendations by noting it is not tied to a specific mal_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly directs user to use get_anime_recommendations for per-title recommendations and warns about lack of official-API fallback, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds context about ranking and popularity, but doesn't disclose further behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose, no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool, output schema existence, and full parameter coverage, the description is nearly complete. Could potentially mention pagination behavior, but not necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it retrieves the most popular/favorited characters ranked overall. Distinguishes from search_characters for specific lookups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises using search_characters for specific character lookups, providing clear when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'Returns compact summaries and the mal_id needed by get_character.' This clarifies the output format and its role as a prerequisite, going beyond schema and annotations. However, it doesn't detail pagination or sorting behavior beyond what the schema provides.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose. The second sentence provides clear alternative usage guidance. No unnecessary words or complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters and an output schema (not provided but mentioned in context), the description is complete enough. It adds critical context about the output (compact summaries, mal_id) and links to related tools. It doesn't repeat schema details, which is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only implicitly connecting the 'q' parameter to 'by name'. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states what the tool does: 'Search MyAnimeList characters by name.' It specifies a specific verb (Search) and resource (MyAnimeList characters), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_anime_characters by noting it returns compact summaries and the mal_id needed for get_character.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does 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. an alternative: 'Use get_anime_characters instead if you already have an anime's mal_id and want its full cast.' This clearly defines the context for this tool (when you don't have an anime ID) and directs to the appropriate sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: deletion is irreversible, the API returns success even when the item was never on the list, and success is not proof of prior existence. This is valuable, non-obvious behavior that agents need to interpret the result correctly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Every sentence earns its place: the main action, irreversibility, the surprising success-response behavior, the advice to confirm via get_my_anime_list, and the auth requirement. It is dense but not bloated, and the most important semantics are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and meaningful annotations, the description fully covers purpose, auth, destructive behavior, idempotency semantics, and a verification path. There is no meaningful missing context that would prevent an agent from using the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for anime_id, including its semantics, source, and naming caveat. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is fine because the schema carries the full burden—exactly the baseline scenario.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') and a clear resource ('anime entry from the authenticated user's list'), and the title/name distinguishes it from sibling delete_my_manga_list_item. It immediately answers what the tool does and for whom.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states the operation happens on the authenticated user's list, requires login, and advises checking get_my_anime_list when confirmation of prior existence is needed. It does not explicitly name delete_my_manga_list_item as the manga alternative, but the title and sibling context make that distinction obvious.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not responsible for the read-only safety profile. It adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond the annotations: the tool returns only stack metadata (not stack entries), depends on Tenrai being reachable, and has no official-API fallback. This is useful, although it does not discuss error behavior or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description packs a clear action, use case, input sourcing tip, output boundary, next-tool routing, and operational dependency into two sentences. Every clause earns its place, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 100% parameter coverage, output schema presence, read-only annotations, and straightforward non-nested output, the description adds the missing non-schema context: how to obtain the anime id, what to do with the returned stack ids, and that the tool requires Tenrai directly. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with rich per-parameter descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description identifies mal_id as the relevant input ('given anime (by mal_id)') but otherwise does not need to explain pagination, sorting, filters, or sfw flags because the schema already does. This is the appropriate baseline-3 case.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a precise action: 'List the public MyAnimeList Interest Stacks that include a given anime (by mal_id)', naming the verb, resource, and key parameter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying that it returns stack metadata only and redirects deeper retrieval to get_interest_stack, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states the tool's use case ('what do people group this with', recommendation jumping-off point), tells the agent to obtain mal_id from search_anime, and instructs using get_interest_stack to retrieve stack entries. It also adds a hard operational constraint: no official-API fallback, so Tenrai must be reachable. This is clear when-to-use and how-to-chain guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly and openWorld. The description adds behavioral traits: review text truncated to 1200 characters, episodes_watched field is present (not chapters_read), and community reaction counts are returned. It also explains that limit only caps the current page, not fetching additional pages.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three well-structured sentences, each adding essential information without redundancy. Front-loaded with core purpose, then key behavioral details, ending with source of mal_id. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description covers return fields (text, score, flags, reactions), pagination behavior, filtering parameters, and id source. It is complete for a review listing tool with rich annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions, but the description adds meaning: clarifies episodes_watched vs chapters_read, explains default sort (most_helpful), and details limit/page interaction beyond schema constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves user reviews for one anime by mal_id, with specific fields. It distinguishes from siblings like get_manga_reviews and get_recent_anime_recommendations by mentioning anime-specific and review-specific details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides detailed usage guidance: how to obtain mal_id (search_anime), explains limit vs page interaction, and clarifies that sort/preliminary/spoilers/sentiment filter before the cap. It lacks explicit when-not to use but gives sufficient context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. Beyond that, the description discloses the scope of results (multiple video categories), the per-item attributes returned, and the 'where available' caveat for count data. It does not discuss rate limits or authentication, but those are less critical for a read-only, single-ID lookup with a full 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and scope, the second differentiates from a sibling, and the third gives a necessary prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one trivial parameter, a full input schema, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It even provides the upstream workflow for obtaining the required ID.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents id as a MyAnimeList numeric ID with bounds. The description adds the practical instruction to fetch that ID from search_anime, which is useful, but it does not need to restate parameter details already covered by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('an anime's promotional videos'), and enumerates concrete content types: PVs/trailers, episode preview clips, and music videos. It also explicitly contrasts itself with get_anime's single trailer field, so an agent can distinguish this tool from its closest sibling without opening either schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states when to prefer this tool: when the caller wants every promo rather than just the main one. It also directs the agent to search_anime to obtain the required mal_id, which is a direct prerequisite for invoking the tool correctly.
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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the bar for added transparency is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those: it returns stack metadata only, requires passing the mal_id to get_interest_stack for entries, and has no official-API fallback, relying on the availability of Tenrai. This does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is dense but entirely purposeful: each sentence earns its place—defining the resource, giving usage context with sibling contrast, marking the return boundary, pointing to the right parent tool, and warning about availability. There is no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 11 optional parameters but a 100% schema-documented parameter set and an output schema, the description does not need to explain filters—it only needs to supply routing and boundary context. It fully covers when to use it, what to do with the result, how it differs from several siblings, and a critical runtime dependency. Nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and every parameter already has rich, unambiguous explanations. The description does not repeat parameter details nor add new semantic guidance for parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The contextual framing of what an Interest Stack is does add background value, but not parameter-specific meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Browse or search MyAnimeList Interest Stacks', then clearly defines what interest stacks are. It also distinguishes itself from get_top_anime and the specific-title variants, so an agent can tell them apart without opening sibling schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('taste- or mood-shaped requests... where a ranking or a genre filter is the wrong instrument'), names the sibling alternative for 'best' vs 'goes together', and routes to get_interest_stack for entries and get_anime_interest_stacks/get_manga_interest_stacks for title-specific lookups. It also warns about the lack of fallback, giving clear boundary conditions.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningfully: it clarifies this lists only public stacks, returns only metadata (not entries), and exposes a hard dependency on Tenrai reachability with no fallback. This goes beyond what annotations or schema state. A small deduction because the description doesn't mention pagination/rate-limit behavior, but the schema already documents pagination parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: three sentences, each carrying distinct information. It front-loads the core purpose, then differentiates from the anime counterpart, then gives the entry-point and dependency warning. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that output schema exists, the description needn't describe return fields. The tool's complexity is high due to 10 parameters and 5 filter enums, but the schema covers them fully; the description supplies exactly what the schema cannot: when to use it, how to source the id, what it returns versus what get_interest_stack does, and the fallback limitation. This is complete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and every parameter has a thorough description in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds value by hinting at the key input flow (mal_id from search_manga) and clarifying that stack mal_ids are the relevant IDs, but it doesn't enumerate each parameter or re-explain the filter semantics. The schema already carries that weight.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('public MyAnimeList Interest Stacks'), and a precise scope ('that include a given manga by mal_id'). It also positions itself as the manga counterpart of get_anime_interest_stacks, which helps distinguish it from siblings at a glance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives concrete routing guidance: get the mal_id from search_manga, and hand a stack's own mal_id to get_interest_stack for entries. It also explicitly warns that no official-API fallback exists and the tool requires Tenrai to be reachable, which tells the agent when to avoid or fail over this tool.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, immutable operation. The description adds critical behavioral context: 'no official-API fallback exists for this tool — it always needs Tenrai itself to be reachable.' This provides information beyond what annotations capture.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every part earns its place—no filler. It is efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description adequately covers what the tool returns, how to obtain the input, and a key behavioral distinction from a sibling tool. Nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the parameter is a mal_id and instructing the agent to get it from search_manga, which aids correct parameter selection beyond the schema's simple description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets read-status counts and score distribution for a manga by mal_id. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from get_anime_statistics by mentioning the absence of an official-API fallback.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells the agent to obtain the mal_id from search_manga, providing clear usage context. It also contrasts with get_anime_statistics regarding the fallback, but does not enumerate alternative tools or conditions for when not to use this tool.
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?
Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and open-world, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by requiring an active MyAnimeList login and by clarifying the anime-only limitation of the underlying API, which goes beyond what annotations or the empty schema convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the login requirement and anime-only limitation are stated in a compact, structured way that earns every word.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema is present, and annotations cover the read-only and open-world nature, the description provides the essential remaining context: auth requirement and the deliberate absence of manga stats. Nothing required for correct invocation or selection is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter meanings to clarify. With no parameters, the baseline is 4 since the description has no additional parameter burden to carry.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource: the logged-in user's MyAnimeList profile and their anime watch-status statistics. It explicitly narrows the scope to anime-only and distinguishes it from any manga-related tool, so an agent can identify it unambiguously among the many sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states when to use it (for the logged-in user's profile and anime stats) and the prerequisite of a MyAnimeList login. It also explains that this tool is not for manga statistics because the official API has no such field and no tool exists for it, effectively providing a clear exclusion even without naming a specific alternative.
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?
Annotations already convey read-only and open-world hints. The description adds useful beyond-annotation behavior: there is no official-API fallback, so the tool depends on Tenrai being reachable. It also states the result includes "full details," which is helpful supplemental behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences deliver the behavior, use case, and a critical operational warning without filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, an output schema, and safety hints already provided by annotations, the only missing contextual ingredient is the reachability restriction, which is included. An agent has everything necessary to decide when and how to call this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. There is no parameter behavior to document, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly omits irrelevant input details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Return one random character (full details)" names the exact operation, the resource type, and the random selection behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from search_characters, get_character, and the other get_random_* sibling tools without requiring schema inspection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear usage context: "Good for discovery / trivia." It also warns that no official-API fallback exists and Tenrai must be reachable, which is a useful operational constraint. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Annotations already establish read-only and open-world behavior, so the bar for extra disclosure is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: staff credits capped at 200, `voice_roles` capped at 50, and no official-API fallback with a hard dependency on Tenrai reachability. Nothing contradicts the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place. It covers purpose, entity scope, output shape, use case, and operational constraints without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description provides complete operational context: what is returned, how it is shaped, when to use it, and what infrastructure is required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return one random person', then disambiguates the entity type by listing 'voice actor, director, author'. It further ties output shape to 'get_person', making its relationship to sibling tools clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states a clear use context: 'Good for discovery / trivia'. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool appropriately.
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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds context that no official-API fallback exists, requiring Tenrai dependency, and mentions inclusion of user commentary. Could add more on rate limits or pagination, but already strong.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: first covers purpose and output, second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns, how to use it, and its external dependency. All necessary context is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters (sfw, page, limit, sfw_strict). The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it returns a site-wide feed of recent manga recommendation pairs with user commentary, and explicitly distinguishes from get_manga_recommendations which is for a specific mal_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs. the sibling get_manga_recommendations, and warns that there is no official-API fallback, requiring Tenrai to be reachable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it explains the idempotent upsert contract ('Creates the entry if absent; fields you omit are left unchanged on an existing entry'), the precondition that at least one field besides anime_id must be provided, and the authentication requirement. This is consistent with idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences with the main action front-loaded in the first sentence. It includes only high-value details: upsert semantics, partial update behavior, required field validation, and login. No word is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 12-parameter mutation tool with rich schema descriptions and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: scoping to the user's list, upsert behavior, partial updates, and authentication. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and every parameter has a detailed inline description, including enum values, ranges, date formats, and naming notes. The description only summarizes the broad field categories (status, score, watched episodes, dates) without adding meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Add or update an anime on the authenticated user's list' and details the update fields (status, score, watched episodes, dates), making the action and resource explicit. It also clarifies the upsert nature, which distinguishes it from read-only anime endpoints and from manga-specific writes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear context: this is a write operation scoped to the authenticated user's anime list, with an explicit login requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as update_my_manga_status or delete_my_anime_list_item, but the anime-vs-manga and write-vs-read distinctions are strongly implied by the wording and title.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals important non-obvious behaviors beyond the readOnlyHint: staff credits are capped at 200 with truncation flags, voice roles capped at 50 in arbitrary order, sfw filters apply only to the credit lists, and full_credits returns everything. This is exactly the kind of edge-case behavior an agent needs to know.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description packs a lot of useful nuance into a compact paragraph, but it is dense and somewhat sprawling rather than well-structured. The first sentence is a clear purpose statement, and the rest earns its place, though it could be tightened by using bullet points or shorter sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich output schema and high schema coverage, the description adequately covers the essential context: how to source the id, what the limits are, what filtering does, and how to get full results. There's no glaring gap for an agent to call this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already covers all parameters with detailed descriptions, including edge-case notes for sfw vs sfw_strict, so the description adds little per-parameter meaning. It does add value by explaining the interaction of full_credits with the credits_truncated flag, but most parameter meaning is already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource (person by mal_id) and enumerates the distinct data returned: bio, staff credits, and voiced roles. It explicitly names the sibling search_people and get_character, making it easy for an agent to distinguish this tool from related lookups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Exactly when to use is stated: to fetch a single person's full details by mal_id, and the description explains how to obtain the mal_id from search_people or get_character. It also distinguishes get_character's voice_actors (with id) from get_anime_characters' (no id), giving clear alternatives and routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description details transparent retry, parameter dropping, empty fields, client-side sfw enforcement, and a quirk where nonsense queries return unrelated results. This adds significant behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While lengthy (250+ words), the description is well-structured with front-loaded purpose and detailed fallback notes. Every sentence serves a purpose given the tool's complexity, though some brevity could be gained.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (19 parameters, fallback behavior), the description covers edge cases (nonsense queries, filter dropping, empty themes/demographics) and references an output schema. It is comprehensive without needing extra explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 19 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by noting which parameters are ignored during fallback, which is beyond the schema definitions, providing practical guidance for parameter use.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches MyAnimeList manga (and light novels, manhwa, manhua) by keyword, and returns compact summaries with mal_id needed by other tools. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_anime (for anime) and get_manga (by ID).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains fallback behavior when Tenrai is unavailable and which parameters are ignored, providing context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like search_anime.
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?
Annotations already mark this as safe and open, and the description adds a useful behavioral caveat beyond them: sfw/sfw_strict filters 'can cut the result down sharply (not necessarily to zero)' rather than being a no-op. This sort of verified edge behavior is exactly the context an agent needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior, then gives routing context, provenance, and a critical sfw-filter caveat, each earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool, the description covers purpose, input source, alternative tools, and subtle filter behavior. The output schema exists to describe return values, so the description does not need to repeat them.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all four parameters at 100%, so the description does not need to repeat them. It still adds meaningful parameter guidance by explaining how to obtain the mal_id and by warning about the practical impact of the sfw flags, which goes beyond the schema text.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource: 'List recent news articles about an anime (by mal_id)' with the headline, date, author, and excerpt output. It also distinguishes itself from the site-wide get_news alternative, so an agent understands exactly what this tool is for.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'what's new / any announcements' questions. It also tells the agent how to get the required id from search_anime and when to choose a different tool, get_news, instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a critical behavioral trait: transparent retry via official API when Tenrai is unavailable, and that in that case the scores field is entirely omitted. This adds value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by explaining a non-obvious data loss scenario.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences. The first sentence states purpose and output, the second provides fallback behavior. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, output schema present, annotations covering safety), the description is complete. It covers purpose, input source, fallback behavior, and output variation. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single parameter 'id'. The description adds value by instructing the user to obtain the mal_id from search_anime, which provides context for parameter acquisition. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'watch-status counts and score distribution for an anime by mal_id'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_anime' which fetches basic info, and 'search_anime' which is used to obtain the mal_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description tells the user to 'Get the mal_id from search_anime', providing context on how to obtain the required input. It also explains the fallback behavior when Tenrai is unavailable, including the omission of scores, which guides usage expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) indicate safety and dynamic data. The description goes beyond by detailing the sfw/sfw_strict parameters' effect on appearance lists, noting the live filtering behavior and the distinction between sfw (allows Ecchi) and sfw_strict (excludes Ecchi). No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose, then efficiently covers parameter details in two additional sentences. Every sentence earns its place—no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It covers purpose, ID source, and parameter behavior thoroughly. For a straightforward lookup tool, this is complete and leaves no gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all parameters (100%), giving baseline 3. The description adds crucial context: sfw/sfw_strict filter the character's appearance lists, not the character itself. This additional explanation aids correct parameter understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves full details for one character by mal_id, including bio, appearances, and voice actors. It also tells how to obtain the mal_id, distinguishing it from search_characters (which lists characters) and get_anime_characters (which lists characters for an anime). The verb 'Get' and resource 'character' are specific, making purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs to obtain the mal_id from search_characters or get_anime_characters, providing clear guidance on prerequisite actions. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but for a simple lookup tool, this is sufficient and avoids confusion with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is read-only, and the description adds valuable behavioral nuance: sfw and sfw_strict filter entries rather than hiding the stack itself, entry order is curator-defined, and the tool has no official-API fallback. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone communicate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the primary action stated first and supporting usage details following efficiently. Every sentence adds meaningful context, from entry ordering to chaining behavior to the absence of an API fallback.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete for a read-only retrieval tool with a rich output schema. It tells the agent how to identify the stack, how to interpret recorded entry data, how sfw filtering behaves, and what dependency exists on Tenrai. Nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful semantic detail: the id is sourced from sibling stack-list tools, and sfw/sfw_strict operate on the entry list rather than hiding the stack. This reinforces and clarifies what the schema definitions already provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states exactly what the tool does: fetch one MyAnimeList Interest Stack by mal_id, including entries in the curator's order with author_score and note. It also clearly distinguishes this from the sibling list-fetching tools by explaining how mal_id is obtained from them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides concrete guidance on how to obtain the mal_id from related interest-stack list tools and how each entry's mal_id can be chained into get_anime or get_manga. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool, but the usage context is clear and practical.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it transparently discloses that sfw/sfw_strict only filter the related entries list, not the requested manga. It also reveals fallback behavior to the official MAL API under specific conditions, listing exactly which fields are omitted and that sfw flags are ignored there.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, with the primary purpose and return scope front-loaded. The longer third sentence is justified because it contains unique health fallback behavior that could not be inferred only from the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a complete output schema, 100% parameter documentation, and detailed fallback behavior, an agent has enough to call this tool correctly. The only missing syntactic instructions (such as how to return fields) are covered by structured schemas.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is decent. The description adds meaningful enhancement by explaining how sfw/sfw_strict affect only the relations list, and how the fallback path ignores them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('get full details for one manga by mal_id') and itemizes the returned data: synopsis, score, genres, serialization, external links, and related entries. This clearly distinguishes the tool from search or character/recommendation siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly instructs the agent to obtain the mal_id from search_manga first, which is a critical workflow prerequisite. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the prerequisite and the detailed scope make the intended usage clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so description adds value by explaining the sfw/sfw_strict filters' non-trivial effect (verified live, can cut results sharply but not to zero) and the return fields. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no wasted text, and the structure efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and parameter behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to use it, when to choose alternatives, and key parameter nuances. It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description goes beyond schema by explaining that sfw alone allows Ecchi genre while sfw_strict excludes it, and that both are not no-ops. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists recent news articles about a manga by mal_id, specifies the output fields (headline, date, author, excerpt), and distinguishes it from the sibling get_news tool for site-wide feed. The verb 'list' is specific and the resource is well-defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells when to use the tool ('what's new / any announcements'), how to obtain the required mal_id (via search_manga), and when to use the alternative get_news for a site-wide feed. It also explains the sfw/sfw_strict filter behavior, providing clear usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds detailed behavioral traits: review text truncation, distinction between chapters_read and episodes_watched, community reaction counts, and the interplay between limit and page. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single paragraph that front-loades the core purpose. It is reasonably concise, containing essential information without redundancy. However, it could be more structured into bullet points for easier scanning, but remains effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: input requirements, parameter behaviors, filtering options, and specific fields. There are no obvious gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 7 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining defaults (limit=5, sort=most_helpful), the relationship between limit and page, and the semantics of fields like chapters_read. This goes beyond the schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves user reviews for one manga using mal_id, listing specific fields (review text truncated to 1200 characters, score, spoiler/preliminary flags, chapters_read, community reactions). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_anime_reviews by specifying manga focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use (for manga reviews) and how to get the mal_id from search_manga. It clarifies parameter behaviors (limit vs page, sort default, filter usage). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for anime reviews), though sibling context implies this.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that q searches beyond headline and lists return fields, providing behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no waste. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, usage, sibling guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 100% schema coverage, output schema present, and annotations, the description is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 4 parameters with 100% description. Description adds nuance that q searches beyond headline, which is not in schema. Baseline 3, plus minor added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it lists site-wide MyAnimeList news articles with headline, date, author, excerpt. It explicitly distinguishes from get_anime_news and get_manga_news.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Describes when to use (site-wide news) and when not (use get_anime_news/get_manga_news for specific anime/manga). Also explains how to use q and tag parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context: when Tenrai is down, it transparently retries via the official API, with details on how `type`/`filter` are merged, `themes`/`demographics` return empty, and `sfw_strict` degrades to `sfw`-like filtering. This goes well beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: the first states the core purpose concisely, the second details fallback behavior. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (fallback logic, multiple parameters, existing output schema), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral edge cases comprehensively. Pagination and parameter details are in the schema, so no need to repeat.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters behave under the fallback (merged `type`/`filter`, empty `themes`/`demographics`, degraded `sfw_strict`). It does not repeat schema descriptions but clarifies dynamic behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns manga ranked by all-time score/popularity, not tied to any release window, and mentions the `filter` parameter for special rankings. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_seasonal_anime (release-window-specific) and get_top_anime (anime).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage context: it is for all-time rankings (not seasonal), and notes that `filter` can be used for special rankings. It also describes the fallback behavior when Tenrai is unavailable, which guides the agent on possible degraded functionality. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_manga or get_manga.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it creates the entry if absent, leaves omitted fields unchanged on existing entries, and requires at least one update field. It also discloses the login requirement. This complements the annotations — readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true — rather than repeating or contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three dense, efficient sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, then the key behaviors are listed, and the final sentence supplies the minimum-input constraint. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 13-parameter write tool, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when it creates vs updates, the minimum field requirement, and authentication needs. The schema carries the detailed parameter documentation and an output schema is present, so nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds global parameter semantics that the schema does not capture: 'fields you omit are left unchanged' and 'provide at least one field besides manga_id.' This is meaningful guidance beyond the schema, especially for a 13-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Add or update a manga on the authenticated user's list'. The scope is evident — this is a list-mutation tool for manga, not an anime or read-only tool — and it is easy to distinguish from siblings like update_my_anime_status and delete_my_manga_list_item.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context: it applies to the authenticated user's manga list, requires a MyAnimeList login, and requires at least one field besides manga_id. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5, but the usage context is well established.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even though annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those flags: the moreinfo field being usually absent, the trailer being only the single main URL, the sfw/sfw_strict filters applying only to the relations list and not the anime itself, and the transparent fallback to the official MAL API with a precise list of omitted fields. This level of detail exceeds what the annotations convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is longer than average, but every sentence earns its place: one sentence defines the core return payload, then each subsequent sentence addresses a genuine edge case (moreinfo optionality, trailer limitation, id sourcing, sfw semantics, fallback degradation). The most important information is front-loaded, and the technical fallback detail is logically placed at the end.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to document return shapes, and it does not waste space doing so. It instead covers the operational aspects an agent needs: the fallback behavior when Tenrai is unavailable, which fields are lost in that fallback, the id acquisition path, and the subtle scoping of the sfw flags. Nothing an agent would need to correctly invoke this tool is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already covers all three parameters 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by clarifying that sfw/sfw_strict do not filter the requested anime itself but only its relations list, and by flagging the fallback API behavior for parameters like sfw. The id parameter is contextualized by the 'from search_anime' guidance, adding temporal semantics beyond the schema's numeric type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Get full details for one anime by mal_id' — and enumerates the concrete fields returned (synopsis, score, genres, studios, streaming links, external links, synonyms, related entries). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by telling the agent to use get_anime_videos for video content, and the 'get full details for one anime' framing sets it apart from search_anime, get_top_anime, and get_anime_schedule.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit routing guidance: 'Obtain the mal_id from search_anime first' tells the agent the prerequisite workflow, and 'use get_anime_videos for every promo/episode-preview/music video' names the alternative and the exact condition for choosing it. It also explains when the sfw parameters apply versus when they don't, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes the fallback to the official MAL API when Tenrai is unavailable, lists which parameters are silently dropped (filter, rating, etc.), which fields come back empty, and how sfw_strict degrades. This goes well beyond the annotations, fully disclosing behavioral quirks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is long but each part contributes useful information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and parameter rules, then details edge-case behaviors. Although dense, it avoids redundancy and maintains focus.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 13 parameters, no required fields, and an output schema, the description covers the key complexities: parameter pairing rules, fallback behavior, parameter dropping, and field degradation. It addresses all likely ambiguities, making the description complete for agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds crucial context about the interplay between year and season (must be together or omitted) and the behavior of sfw/sfw_strict, providing extra meaning beyond the schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'List anime from a given season' – a specific verb and resource. It clarifies the parameter pairing rule (year+season together or omitted) and distinguishes from get_upcoming_season, making the tool's purpose unmistakable among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to supply parameters (both year and season for a specific season, omit both for current) and directs users to get_upcoming_season for the next season, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool vs an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description details fallback behavior when Tenrai is unavailable, including how type/filter are merged, rating is ignored, and certain fields come back empty. Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds critical behavioral context beyond the structured data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively long but every sentence serves a purpose. It front-loads the main functionality and fallback details. Could be slightly more polished, but there is no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers when to use the tool, sibling alternatives, parameter interactions, and fallback behavior. Since an output schema exists, return values are not needed. The tool is complex with a fallback mechanism, and the description handles it comprehensively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with good descriptions. The description adds value by explaining how parameters behave during the fallback scenario (e.g., rating ignored, sfw_strict degrades), which the schema alone does not convey. This extra context earns a score above the baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves anime ranked by all-time score/popularity, not tied to any season. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_seasonal_anime and get_upcoming_season by explaining when to use those alternatives instead.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides usage boundaries: for a specific season's lineup, use get_seasonal_anime or get_upcoming_season. It also explains the fallback behavior and how parameters behave differently when Tenrai is unavailable, guiding the agent on when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only and open-world; description adds rich detail on retry logic, parameter dropping, field emptiness, and sfw behavior, all beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is long but front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence is justified given complexity; slight verbosity but no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 11 parameters, full schema coverage, and complex fallback scenario, description covers purpose, alternatives, behavioral nuances, and parameter effects. Output schema exists, so return values are covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 11 parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining parameter interactions under fallback, but doesn't redefine individual semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists anime for the upcoming season, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling get_seasonal_anime for current/past seasons.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use get_seasonal_anime instead, and details fallback behavior and parameter limitations, guiding correct invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that fallback to official API may occur with different ordering/counts and that sfw/sfw_strict are ignored in fallback. This provides behavioral nuance beyond annotations without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with no redundant sentences. It is structured logically: core purpose, usage guidance, parameter details, fallback behavior. Each sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (multiple data sources, fallback, filtering), the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use alternatives, parameter details, and fallback idiosyncrasies. Output schema exists, so return values are already documented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying usage (e.g., mal_id from search_anime) and explaining sfw/sfw_strict details (excludes R+ and Ecchi) and fallback behavior (ignored). This exceeds schema explanations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns community recommendations similar to a given mal_id, ordered by votes, capped at top 25 with no pagination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_top_anime and get_recent_anime_recommendations, providing a specific verb, resource, and constraints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells when to use alternatives: 'Use get_top_anime instead for a global popularity/score ranking not tied to one title, or get_recent_anime_recommendations for a site-wide feed...' and advises to get the mal_id from search_anime, covering prerequisites and exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it specifies the cap at 25 recommendations, no pagination, the sfw/sfw_strict filtering behavior, and the transparent fallback to the official API when Tenrai is unavailable, including differences in ordering/counts and ignoring sfw filters. This fully informs the agent of the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: four sentences with no redundant words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, alternatives are given immediately, and details about filtering and fallback follow logically. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, an output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers all aspects: purpose, usage, filtering behavior, fallback mechanism, and distinguishing from siblings. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the sfw/sfw_strict parameters in context ('filter NSFW entries out of the recommendation list itself') and noting that during fallback these filters are ignored. This enriches understanding beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get community recommendations for manga similar to the given mal_id, ordered by votes and capped at the top 25 (no pagination).' It also distinguishes from siblings like get_top_manga and get_recent_manga_recommendations, ensuring the agent knows when to use this tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use get_top_manga instead for a global popularity/score ranking not tied to one title, or get_recent_manga_recommendations for a site-wide feed of recommendation pairs not tied to this title either.' It also tells how to obtain the mal_id: 'Get the mal_id from search_manga.' This helps the agent decide when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description thoroughly explains the authentication process, including opening a browser, copying URLs, and conditions for automatic vs manual completion. Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint false) and side effects (openWorldHint true), which align with the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is informative and well-structured, but slightly verbose. It could be split into shorter sentences, but no unnecessary information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers prerequisites, the authentication flow, potential issues, and fallback to submit_mal_redirect. It is complete given the tool's complexity and lack of parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no properties, so the description compensates by explaining the tool's behavior and workflow. No additional parameter details are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool authorizes personal-list tools with a MyAnimeList account. It uses specific verbs ('Authorize', 'one-time') and distinguishes from sibling tools like submit_mal_redirect by explaining the authentication flow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states this is a prerequisite for personal-list tools and provides step-by-step instructions. It also guides when to use submit_mal_redirect as an alternative when automatic callback fails (e.g., remote host or busy port).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Grinv/mal-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server