ForgeSwarm

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
All 24 tools have clearly distinct purposes, from task lifecycle (claim, update, complete, submit) to project management (create, plan) and collaboration (discussions, reviews, context). No two tools overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
Every tool follows a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., claim_task, submit_plan, list_projects). The naming conventions are uniform and predictable across the entire set.
Tool Count4/5
With 24 tools, the count is slightly above the typical well-scoped range (3-15) but remains reasonable given the complexity of swarm orchestration. None feel redundant.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of project creation, task management, review, discussions, decisions, and context sharing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no project editing or task deletion), but core workflows are supported.
Average 4/5 across 24 of 24 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 7 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 13, 2026
- 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.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions substring search and empty query behavior, but omits critical details like case sensitivity, search scope (e.g., per project from project_id), pagination behavior, and return structure. The limit parameter is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two front-loaded sentences. Every word serves a purpose: first sentence defines scope and action, second adds a key edge case condition. No redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct invocation. It omits what constitutes the blackboard, how limit behaves, and the nature of substring matching (exact, fuzzy, case). The empty query note is helpful but insufficient for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no value beyond the schema. It only indirectly implies the query parameter via 'substring', but does not explain project_id or limit. The agent receives no help interpreting parameter meanings or formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches a 'shared blackboard' by substring over keys, content, and tags, and specifies behavior for empty queries. It is a specific verb on a specific resource, making the purpose unmistakable even among diverse siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or comparative context with sibling tools such as get_briefing or list_projects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fails to disclose pagination, ordering, rate limits, or side effects. The status filter values are hinted but not fully clarified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is front-loaded and contains only necessary information. No redundant phrases.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, but description omits any mention of response structure or pagination. While output schema exists, description should still indicate what kind of data is returned (e.g., list of discussion objects).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description adds value by linking project_id to project context, status to 'open' or 'resolved', and include_posts to 'with their posts'. However, default values and exact behavior of null status are not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'List', resource 'discussions', scope 'on a project', and includes filter by status ('open' or 'resolved') and posts. Distinguishes from sibling tools like open_discussion or resolve_discussion which are action-oriented.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., open_discussion, resolve_discussion). Cannot tell if this is read-only or how it differs from similar listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions included fields (task title, iteration count) but does not disclose other behaviors such as read-only nature, required permissions, sorting, pagination, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The verb and resource are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists, description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, making it adequate but not fully complete for a simple list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description only implicitly references project_id via 'this project', without explaining its meaning, format, or how to obtain it. Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate but does not add significant value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'submissions waiting for review', and the context 'on this project'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tasks and submit_for_review by focusing specifically on the review queue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage when needing to see pending reviews, but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. Sibling tools like list_tasks and submit_for_review are related but not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It describes what the tool returns (totals, stats, hotspots) and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified or mention any permissions or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose, list of return data, and usage guidance. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is well-described for its purpose, with return data listed despite no output schema. However, it lacks prerequisites or access requirements, which may leave gaps for complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the lone parameter project_id, missing an opportunity to add context beyond the schema's type and requirement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool compiles performance evidence for a swarm retrospective, with a specific verb (compile) and resource (project performance evidence). It distinguishes from siblings like record_decision and get_briefing by focusing on retrospective data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises using the tool to analyze data for proposing process improvements and mentions a related tool (record_decision) for recording decisions. While it provides a usage flow, it lacks explicit exclusions or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that decisions appear in briefings and that only the written rationale is visible to future agents, but does not discuss auth requirements, destructiveness, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: the first defines purpose, the second adds critical usage context for the rationale parameter. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description is somewhat sparse. It lacks details on prerequisites, error handling, and when agent_id is used, but the core use case is covered adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It specifically explains the 'rationale' parameter ('Record the WHY') and its permanence, but does not clarify project_id, decision, or agent_id beyond what the schema names imply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Log' and resource 'architectural/engineering decision', and the phrase 'so the swarm stops re-litigating it' distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools like open_discussion or resolve_discussion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use (to stop re-litigation) and emphasizes recording the WHY in rationale. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternative tools for similar actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the prerequisite, the automatic recording as a project decision with rationale, and the long-term effect on future briefings. It could mention irreversibility or discussion state change, but overall is quite transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. Highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the tool's effect well—prerequisite, action, and long-term impact. It does not specify return value or discussion state post-close, but these are minor omissions for a relatively simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, requiring the description to explain parameters. The description does not mention any of the four parameters (discussion_id, agent_id, resolution, rationale). This is a significant gap; agents have no guidance on parameter semantics beyond their names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool closes a discussion and makes it binding project memory, using specific verb 'close' and resource 'discussion'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'open_discussion' and 'post_to_discussion' by emphasizing permanence and binding nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear prerequisite (positions from 2 agents) and explains the consequence (binding project memory, no re-litigation). While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the context from sibling tools makes it reasonably clear this is for finalization.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses upsert behavior and briefing integration but omits details on permissions, rate limits, or failure handling. The transparency is adequate but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It is efficiently front-loaded with purpose, followed by guidelines, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 5 parameters and no annotations, the description leaves gaps: it does not explain 'project_id' or 'agent_id', and lacks information on failure behavior. However, the output schema exists, so return values are covered. The core functionality is well-explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It adds meaning to 'key' (stable, updates), 'content' (implied), and 'tags' (task-<id> pattern) but does not cover 'project_id' or 'agent_id'. Overall, it partly compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool writes a fact to a shared blackboard, specifying the verb 'write' and the resource 'shared blackboard'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_context (for reading) by focusing on writing/updating facts with stable keys.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidelines: use stable descriptive keys, update by reusing keys, and tag with 'task-<id>' for briefing visibility. It lacks direct comparison to other write-oriented siblings but offers clear context for when to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that no review happens, but does not mention permissions, irrversibility, or other side effects. The mention that summary is for future briefings adds some transparency, but more detail on what happens when completing a task would improve clarity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and condition, and includes a helpful note on the summary. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema exists but is not shown; still, the description covers the core behavior and usage. However, without explaining all parameters, the definition is incomplete for agents needing to supply correct inputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'summary' parameter (for future briefings). The 'task_id', 'agent_id', and 'artifacts' parameters are not addressed, leaving their meaning and format ambiguous despite self-explanatory names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Mark your claimed task done WITHOUT review (for trivial/mechanical tasks).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'submit_for_review'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'For anything substantive, prefer submit_for_review.' It also provides guidance on the summary parameter: 'write it for them.' This makes usage context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the effect of the 'ready_only' and 'status' filters, but it does not mention other important behaviors such as whether multiple calls are safe, pagination, ordering, or any performance considerations. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds practical parameter usage. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description effectively covers the main operation and the two optional parameters. It does not detail the output, but that is handled by the output schema. It could be more complete by explicitly mentioning the project_id parameter, but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the 'ready_only' and 'status' parameters beyond the bare schema: it explains that 'ready_only' shows claimable tasks and lists acceptable status values. However, it does not describe the required 'project_id' parameter, assuming the user understands it refers to the project board. This provides good but incomplete parameter coverage given 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'List tasks on the project board,' which clearly identifies the action (list) and the resource (tasks on a project board). It differentiates from sibling tools like claim_task or update_task that perform different operations, and the required project_id in the schema confirms the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a specific use case for the 'ready_only' parameter but does not explicitly state when to use list_tasks versus alternative tools such as get_task_graph or get_review_queue. The guidance is implied but lacks explicit context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds that templates are 'battle-tested' and describes the content, but does not disclose behavior like ordering, limitations, or authorization requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention that it returns all templates, but the behavioral transparency is adequate for a simple read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the description need not elaborate. It adds context by stating the purpose and nature of the output, which is sufficient given 100% schema coverage on parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('battle-tested engineering workflow templates') and specifies what is returned ('with what each is for'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_workflow_template' which likely retrieves details of a single template.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies using this tool to list all templates, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_workflow_template'. No exclusion or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description clearly indicates the tool creates a discussion entity and sets up a context for debate. It does not mention any destructive side effects or authorization needs, but the purpose is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences that are entirely non-redundant. First sentence states the purpose precisely, second provides a critical usage hint. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, return values are not needed. However, the description leaves some gaps: 'agent_id' is optional but its purpose is unclear, and 'project_id' is required but not explained. The sibling tools list provides some context, but parameter semantics are incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. Only the 'topic' parameter receives guidance ('Frame the topic as a decidable question'). 'project_id' and 'agent_id' are not explained, leaving the agent uninformed about their roles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Open a discussion') and the specific context ('when agents disagree or a choice needs multiple perspectives'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like post_to_discussion and resolve_discussion by focusing on initiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (disagreement or need for perspectives) and provides actionable guidance on framing the topic as a decidable question and inviting positions via post_to_discussion. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, so not 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It discloses that 'approve' completes the task and 'request_changes' resubmits with comments. It also states the self-review prohibition. Missing details like notifications or permission requirements, but sufficient for typical use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: a single lead sentence followed by a focused explanation of the two verdicts and a key constraint. No redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, the description provides essential behavior but omits explanation of two parameters and does not mention error states or limits. Adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain all parameters. It only partially explains 'verdict' (listing values) and 'comments' (attached to briefing). 'submission_id' and 'agent_id' receive no explanation, leaving ambiguity about their roles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Post' and the resource 'verdict on a submission', listing the two permissible values 'approve' and 'request_changes'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like submit_for_review or get_review_queue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the consequences of each verdict: 'approve completes the task' and 'request_changes sends it straight back to the author as in_progress'. It also includes a critical constraint: 'You cannot review your own submission.' However, it does not compare to alternative tools or specify when not to use this tool beyond self-review.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It indicates the action is posting a position with reasoning, but omits details about side effects, permissions, or the fact that it's a write operation. The advice to respond thoughtfully hints at the action but is not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with the main purpose and key advice front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists, the description lacks preconditions (e.g., discussion must be open, agent must be participant) and postconditions (e.g., post is added). The advice to read posts is helpful, but overall completeness for a mutation tool is moderate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'position' in context but does not explain what discussion_id or agent_id refer to, nor does it specify format or constraints for the position. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'state your position' and specifies the resource 'open discussion'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'open_discussion' and 'resolve_discussion' by including reasoning and responding to the strongest opposing argument, clarifying its unique role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises reading existing posts first via list_discussions/get_briefing and responding to the strongest opposing argument rather than past ones. This provides clear context for when and how to use the tool, effectively guiding the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that commands run without a shell, have a hard timeout, and results are recorded as review evidence. It lacks details on failure behavior or task state changes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with four sentences, front-loading the purpose. It could be slightly more streamlined, but it effectively communicates key points without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate context but leaves gaps: no return value description, no error handling, and no prerequisites like task ownership.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists allowed executables for the command parameter and implies a timeout, but does not define parameters like cwd or timeout_seconds beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs an allowlisted verification command (tests/linters/builds) for a task, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from siblings by its focus on command execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for running tests/linters/builds and lists allowed executables, providing context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison 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?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the atomic claim, lease mechanism, failure behavior, and the implication that update_task renews the lease. It explains how the task returns to the board on agent crash, ensuring no stalls. This is comprehensive for a tool without annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two paragraphs, front-loading the core action. However, the second paragraph is a block of text that could be broken down for clarity. It is still short and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the primary behavior, failure conditions, lease lifecycle, and next steps. Given that an output schema exists (though not shown), missing return value details are acceptable. It does not address permissions or error codes, but the core functionality is well-covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description only mentions the lease concept without explaining any of the three parameters (task_id, agent_id, lease_seconds). It does not define what agent_id represents or how lease_seconds affects the lease. The agent would need to infer parameter meanings from context, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool atomically claims an open task, specifies failure conditions (taken or not ready), and distinguishes from siblings like complete_task and get_briefing. The verb 'claim' and resource 'task' are specific and unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit post-claim guidance ('call get_briefing before starting') and implies usage in a workflow with lease renewal via update_task. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with other siblings beyond the workflow 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?
No annotations, so description carries burden. It explains it creates a resource and returns an ID, but does not disclose idempotency, error conditions, or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, efficient with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers both parameters and relationship to submit_plan. Output schema exists so return format is less critical. Missing error cases but adequate for a simple creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description adds meaning: goal is the engineering goal, constraints hold non-negotiables like stack, deadline, style rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool registers a new engineering goal and returns a project ID, distinguishing it from siblings like submit_plan and list_projects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear sequential guidance: call once per goal, then decompose with submit_plan. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what the output includes (status, blockers, assignees) but does not disclose whether it is read-only, performance implications for large graphs, or access requirements. The behavioral context is adequate but leaves some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No superfluous information. The first sentence immediately communicates the tool's value and output. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a single required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains what is returned and when to use it. Minor missing details about the output format or limitations, but sufficient for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies that the project_id parameter identifies the project for which the graph is retrieved, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explicitly describe the parameter's format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns a dependency graph with tasks, status, blockers, and assignees. It uses a strong verb ('See') and explicitly lists the resource ('whole dependency graph'). It distinguishes from sibling 'get' tools like get_briefing and get_retrospective by focusing on task interdependencies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides specific use cases: 'find the critical path' and 'check whether the project is done.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives like list_tasks for simple task listings. The guidance is helpful but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full burden. It describes a read operation ('list'), which is correctly implied, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like permissions or side effects. Adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that immediately conveys the action and scope. No wasted words; front-loaded with the verb 'List'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does (list projects with status) without missing essential information, though it could mention the absence of filtering.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as it adds no confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'all projects in this swarm' and adds 'with their status', making it specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like list_tasks or list_discussions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: this tool is for listing all projects. No explicit when-not or alternatives given, but the purpose is straightforward and sibling tools cover different resources, so the usage is implied.
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?
Discloses important behaviors: attribution of claims/submissions/reviews to the agent_id and rejection of self-review based on it. This goes beyond the schema and annotations (none provided).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers the essential purpose and behavioral impact but omits explanation of role and capabilities parameters. Additionally, no output schema or return value description is provided, which could help the agent understand what to expect after registration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only agent_id is explained with uniqueness and stability requirements; role and capabilities are not described. With 0% schema coverage, the description should cover all parameters but only does so partially.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: introducing the agent to the swarm with a stable, unique ID. It specifies when to call it (once at startup) and distinguishes it from siblings that handle tasks, projects, and discussions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use (once at startup) and how to select and reuse an agent_id. While it doesn't list alternatives, the tool's role as a registration makes alternatives self-evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool creates tasks (a write operation) and returns them with real IDs. It explains the dependency indexing mechanism. However, it does not mention whether it is idempotent, if it validates dependencies or project existence, or any side effects like overwriting existing tasks. Still, it is fairly transparent about the core behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose statement, dependency explanation, and return value with next step. It is front-loaded, with no unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, how dependencies work, what it returns, and the next action. It is missing details about project existence requirements and behavior on repeated calls, but for a tool with a clear purpose and schema-defined parameters, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for top-level parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds critical semantics for the `depends_on` field: 'zero-based indexes into the tasks list itself,' implying tasks must be ordered topologically. However, it does not describe `project_id` or the `tasks` array beyond what the schema already provides through the $defs. The added value is moderate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Decompose a project goal into a dependency-ordered task graph in one call.' This specifies a verb (decompose), resource (project goal into task graph), and scope (one call). It distinguishes from siblings like create_project (creates a project) and list_tasks (reads tasks) by focusing on creating a structured plan of tasks with dependencies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage hint: after submitting the plan, agents should 'claim ready tasks with claim_task.' This guides the workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like individually creating tasks via update_task. The context signals show many sibling tools, but no exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the behavioral outcome ('task moves to in_review') and defines parameters ('content' as what the reviewer judges, 'self_assessment' as honest note). It could mention if the submission can be withdrawn or any restrictions, but overall it is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences dedicated to purpose and a second paragraph for parameter and outcome details. Every sentence adds value, and the main action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (though not detailed), the description covers the main behavioral outcome and parameter meanings. It could be enhanced by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., task must be claimed) or constraints (e.g., cannot submit if already in review), but it is sufficient for a typical workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining 'content' and 'self_assessment' in detail (e.g., diff, list of changed files, results summary for content; honest note for self_assessment). 'task_id' and 'agent_id' are not elaborated but are self-explanatory identifiers. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Submit your claimed task's work product for peer review.' It uses a specific verb ('submit') and resource ('task's work product') and differentiates from siblings like 'post_review' and 'complete_task' by focusing on the act of submitting for peer review.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context by noting that the task moves to 'in_review' and that a different agent posts a verdict, implying the workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when not to use it or mention of sibling tools like 'complete_task').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It describes the output in detail (project goal, task, dependencies, decisions, context, feedback) and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state safety or side effects, which would push it to 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences: a headline definition, a comma-separated list of contents, and a usage timing instruction. Every sentence is essential, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (one param with implicit meaning) and the existence of an output schema, the description provides all necessary context for correct invocation. It tells what the tool returns and when to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter task_id. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what is obvious from context. However, the tool's purpose and usage guidance partially compensate, making the parameter clear enough for invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get an onboarding packet for a task: everything needed to start cold.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the list of bundled items distinguishes it from siblings like get_retrospective.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call this right after claim_task, and again after a review requests changes.' This tells the agent precisely when to invoke the tool and implies when not to.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the template includes a 'recommended swarm' and a 'task list shaped for submit_plan' with 'depends_on indexes already wired.' This informs the agent of the output's structure and readiness for submission. While it does not cover authentication or error handling, the behavior (a read operation returning a structured template) is adequately disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences plus a short list. It immediately states the purpose and then gives actionable guidance. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded. No extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, available inputs, and how to use the output. It could explicitly mention that the output is a template object, but this is implied by 'recommended swarm + a task list.' The sibling tool list_workflow_templates provides a complementary listing capability, reducing the need for more detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'name' has no schema description (0% coverage). The tool description lists three valid values: 'ship-feature', 'refactor-module', 'debug-issue', which effectively provides an enum-like constraint. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, enabling correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a workflow template: recommended swarm + a task list shaped for submit_plan.' It lists specific available templates (ship-feature, refactor-module, debug-issue), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_workflow_templates which lists all templates rather than retrieving a specific one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Available: ship-feature, refactor-module, debug-issue. Adapt the task titles/descriptions to your concrete goal, then pass the tasks straight to submit_plan — depends_on indexes are already wired.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (for preparing submit_plan) and what to do with the result. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like list_workflow_templates, but the guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavior. It reveals that the tool updates status (claimed/in_progress) and notes, and that notes are saved to shared context tagged with the task ID. It also mentions lease renewal, which is not obvious from the schema. However, it does not describe potential side effects, rate limits, or authorization requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three sentences that front-load the core purpose, list allowed statuses, and provide exclusion guidance. Every sentence adds value with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 2 required), the description covers the essential behavior: updating progress, setting status, saving notes to shared context, and lease renewal. The output schema exists so return values are documented elsewhere. Sibling tools are numerous, and the description clearly distinguishes from finish tools. It is complete enough for an update operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'status' parameter can be 'claimed' or 'in_progress', and that 'notes' are saved to shared context visible to other agents. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it could be more explicit about the 'agent_id' purpose and the format of 'task_id'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Report progress on your claimed task and renew its lease,' which clearly states the tool's action (reporting progress and renewing lease) and the resource (claimed task). It distinguishes itself from siblings like claim_task, complete_task, and submit_for_review by noting that finishing goes through other tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: to report progress and renew lease on a claimed task. It also provides clear exclusion guidance: 'Finishing goes through submit_for_review or complete_task instead,' helping the agent choose the correct tool.
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:

[![forgeswarm MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/H2SO4620/forgeswarm/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/H2SO4620/forgeswarm)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![forgeswarm MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/H2SO4620/forgeswarm/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/H2SO4620/forgeswarm)

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/H2SO4620/forgeswarm'

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