crafty-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.2
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists within server file management (e.g., server_create_file, server_update_file, server_get_file) and webhook/task operations, which could cause minor confusion. However, descriptions clarify specific actions, and the overall organization into categories (crafty_, role_, server_, user_) helps disambiguation.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent pattern: all use snake_case with a clear prefix (crafty_, role_, server_, user_) followed by a verb_noun structure (e.g., server_create, user_update). This consistency makes the set predictable and easy to navigate, with no deviations in style.
Tool Count2/5
With 63 tools, the count is excessive for an MCP server, making it overwhelming and likely to cause agent confusion. While the domain (Minecraft server management) is broad, this many tools suggests over-fragmentation, such as separate tools for each file operation, rather than a more consolidated approach.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for Crafty Controller and Minecraft server management, including CRUD operations for servers, roles, users, and related entities (e.g., backups, tasks, webhooks). It supports full lifecycle management with no obvious gaps, from server creation to monitoring and maintenance.
Average 3.2/5 across 63 of 63 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under AGPL 3.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether changes are reversible, or potential side effects. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a configuration update tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple update operation and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a configuration update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what configuration settings are available, what format the key-value pairs should use, what happens on success/failure, or return values. The agent lacks critical context for proper tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'config' well-documented as 'Configuration key-value pairs to update.' The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and target ('Crafty Controller panel configuration settings'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'crafty_get_config' or other configuration-related tools, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crafty_get_config' for reading configuration or other update tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't address critical aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions (e.g., duplicate roles), or what happens on success (e.g., returns a role ID). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'role' means in this system, what data should be in 'role_data', what the tool returns, or error handling. Given the complexity implied by nested objects in the schema and the lack of structured guidance, more context is needed for an agent to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'role_data' documented as 'Role configuration data' in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond this, such as example fields or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a new role in Crafty Controller'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other role-related tools like role_update or role_delete, nor does it specify what distinguishes a 'role' in this context from other entities like users or servers.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like role_update or user_create. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication via crafty_login), use cases (e.g., setting up permissions), or constraints (e.g., role name uniqueness).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify critical behavioral aspects: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects associated users or servers, or what the response looks like (confirmation, error messages). This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical context: what happens post-deletion, error conditions, permission requirements, or system impact. The agent lacks necessary information to use this tool safely and effectively in a production environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'role_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (no format examples, constraints, or relationship to other tools). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a role from Crafty Controller'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like role_get, role_list, and role_update by specifying the destructive delete operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from user_delete or server_delete, which are similar destructive operations on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the role must be unused), consequences (e.g., what happens to users assigned this role), or alternatives (e.g., role_update for modification instead of deletion). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation but doesn't mention what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple update operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what errors might occur, or important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements. Given the complexity of updating roles in a controller system, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what fields can be in 'updates' or providing examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and target resource ('an existing role in Crafty Controller'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'user_update' or 'server_update' beyond specifying it's for roles.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for updating roles, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing role_id), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar update tools for users or servers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates servers but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error handling, rate limits, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a server ID). This is a significant gap for a creation tool with complex parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured by separating server type details, but it avoids redundancy and wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex creation tool with 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, or behavioral aspects like authentication needs. With no annotations and rich schema, the description should provide more operational context to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning server types (Java, Bedrock, custom) which aligns with 'create_type' enum values, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new Minecraft server') and resource ('in Crafty Controller'), specifying supported server types (Java, Bedrock, custom). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'server_clone' or 'server_update', but the verb 'Create' is distinct from operations like 'Clone' or 'Update'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'server_clone' for duplicating existing servers or 'server_update' for modifying servers. The description mentions supported server types but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the directory already exists, or any rate limits. It provides only the basic action without operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the essential information immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral considerations like whether parent directories must exist or path format requirements. The combination of mutation operation + no structured metadata requires more descriptive context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (server_id, parent, name) with their types and basic descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation but not providing extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new directory') and target resource ('on a Minecraft server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'server_create_file' or 'server_create', but the verb+resource combination is sufficiently specific for basic understanding.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'server_create_file' or general 'server_create'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for directory creation versus other server operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a file, implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether it overwrites existing files, error handling, or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, overwrite behavior), usage context, and output information, which are critical for an AI agent to invoke it correctly and safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (server_id, parent, name). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('create a new file') and resource ('on a Minecraft server'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'server_create_directory' or 'server_update_file', which would require mentioning it creates files (not directories) and is for new files (not updates).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., server must be running), exclusions (e.g., cannot overwrite existing files), or direct siblings like 'server_create_directory' for directories or 'server_update_file' for modifying files, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions webhook types and trigger events but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether creation is idempotent, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with 8 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences with zero waste. First sentence states core purpose, second provides useful examples. Well-structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns webhook ID, confirmation message), error handling, or system behavior. The examples help but don't compensate for missing behavioral context needed for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by listing example webhook types ('Discord and other webhook types') and trigger events, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new webhook') and resource ('for a Minecraft server'), with specific examples of webhook types and trigger events. It distinguishes from siblings like server_delete_webhook and server_update_webhook by focusing on creation, but doesn't explicitly contrast with server_test_webhook or server_list_webhooks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like server_update_webhook or server_test_webhook. The description lists trigger events but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when-not-to-use scenarios. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether it overwrites existing files, supported archive formats, error conditions, or output behavior. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a file mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks information about behavioral traits, error handling, supported formats, and what happens post-decompression. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps in operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., archive format requirements, path conventions), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('decompress/unzip') and target ('an archive file on a Minecraft server'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like server_create_file or server_update_file, which handle different file operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), exclusions, or related tools for compression operations, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify critical details like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects associated resources (e.g., backups, files), or has confirmation prompts. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral implications (e.g., permanence, side effects), usage context, and expected outcomes, which are critical for safe and effective tool invocation by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'server_id' documented as 'Server ID or UUID' in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a Minecraft server from Crafty Controller'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'server_delete_backup' or 'server_delete_file', which share the 'delete' action but target different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing server_id from server_list), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete running servers), or comparisons with similar tools like 'server_delete_backup' or 'server_delete_file'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a backup, implying it's a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. For a destructive operation, this lack of detail is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety warnings, response format, or error handling. Given the complexity of a delete operation in a server management context, more completeness is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('server_id' and 'backup_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying these IDs are needed to target a specific backup. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the target ('a specific backup for a Minecraft server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'server_delete' (which deletes servers) or 'server_restore_backup' (which restores backups), missing an opportunity for full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a backup to exist), exclusions (e.g., not for deleting servers), or related tools like 'server_list_backups' for identifying backups to delete. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions deletion but fails to specify critical details like whether the action is irreversible, requires specific permissions, affects server performance, or has rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, return values, and usage context, failing to provide the completeness needed for safe and effective tool invocation in a complex environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying deletion of 'one or more files or directories', which aligns with the 'paths' array parameter but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema's details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target ('files or directories from a Minecraft server'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'server_delete' (which likely deletes entire servers) or 'server_delete_backup', leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'server_delete' or 'server_delete_backup'. It lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a deletion operation but doesn't mention critical behavioral aspects: whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, if it's destructive to server operations, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (success response, error conditions), doesn't mention dependencies or side effects, and provides no behavioral context. The description should do more given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema (server_id and task_id). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a scheduled task from a Minecraft server'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'server_delete', 'server_delete_backup', or 'server_delete_file', which all perform deletion operations on different server resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing task), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'server_get_task' (to verify existence) or 'server_list_tasks' (to find task IDs).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a webhook, implying a destructive mutation, but does not mention permissions required, whether the deletion is permanent, error handling, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key information and has no redundant or verbose elements.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, consequences, or response format, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('server_id' and 'webhook_id'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or relationships between parameters, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the target ('a webhook from a Minecraft server'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'server_delete' or 'server_delete_task', which share the same verb but target different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'server_update_webhook' for modifying webhooks or 'server_list_webhooks' for viewing them. It lacks context about prerequisites, like needing an existing webhook, or exclusions, such as not being usable for other server components.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'full configuration details' entails in terms of response format or data structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a read operation tool. It does not explain what 'full configuration details' includes, potential response formats, or error handling, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to interpret results or handle failures.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'server_id' parameter clearly documented as 'Server ID or UUID'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or format specifics, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('full configuration details for a specific Minecraft server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'server_get_stats' or 'server_get_logs', which also retrieve server information but for different data types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'server_list' (for overviews) or other 'server_get_*' tools (for specific data types). It lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but lacks behavioral details: no mention of permissions needed, rate limits, whether logs are real-time or historical, pagination, or error conditions. 'Get' implies a read operation, but that's insufficient for a mutation-heavy context with tools like server_delete or server_kill.
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, front-loaded with the core action, zero waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return format details (e.g., log line structure, timestamps), error handling, or operational context in a server management system with many mutation tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (server_id parameter is fully documented in schema). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating or adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Minecraft server's console logs'), specifying the output format ('as an array of log lines'). It distinguishes from siblings like server_get (general info) or server_get_stats (metrics), but doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like server_get_history or server_get (which might include logs). The description implies it's for retrieving console logs specifically, but doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't address other important aspects like authentication requirements, error conditions (e.g., what happens if the webhook doesn't exist), rate limits, or the format of returned details. The description is too minimal for a tool that likely involves server access.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a server/webhook management tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, potential side effects, or error handling. For a tool that likely interacts with a server system, more context about the operation's behavior and output would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('server_id' and 'webhook_id') clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get details') and resource ('for a specific webhook'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'server_list_webhooks' by focusing on a single webhook rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't specify what details are retrieved, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'server_list_webhooks' or 'server_update_webhook'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the webhook ID from a list operation) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of webhooks. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., webhook IDs, URLs, status), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., maximum number of webhooks). This leaves the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'server_id' documented as 'Server ID or UUID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this (e.g., where to find the ID, format examples), so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all webhooks') and the resource ('configured for a Minecraft server'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'server_get_webhook' (singular) or 'server_test_webhook', which would be needed for a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'server_get_webhook' (for a specific webhook) or 'server_test_webhook'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing server access) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It states the action but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether the operation is atomic, if it overwrites existing files, error conditions, or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks behavioral details (permissions, side effects), usage context, and output expectations. Given the complexity of file operations, more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying 'path' and 'new_name' relate to file operations. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Rename or move') and target ('a file or directory on a Minecraft server'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like server_update_file or server_create_directory, which might handle similar operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or compare to siblings like server_update_file (which might handle content updates) or server_create_directory (for creation).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if it's destructive (interrupts gameplay), what happens during restart (downtime, save states), or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (permissions, effects, errors) and output expectations, which are critical for safe agent invocation. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for missing operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (server_id parameter is fully documented in schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Restart') and resource ('a Minecraft server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like server_start and server_stop by specifying the restart operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like server_start, server_stop, or server_kill. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., server must be running) or exclusions (e.g., not for initial startup).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Restore') which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is destructive (overwrites current server state), requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., server downtime), or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks necessary operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens during restoration (e.g., server stops, data replaces current state), success/failure indicators, or return values. For a potentially destructive operation, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining relationships between server_id, backup_id, and filename). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Restore') and target ('a specific backup for a Minecraft server'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'server_clone' or 'server_update' which might also involve server state changes, missing explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing backups), when-not-to-use scenarios (e.g., during server runtime), or compare to siblings like 'server_clone' or 'server_update' for similar operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It implies a write operation ('trigger') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects (e.g., task execution, logs), rate limits, or what happens if the task fails. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('manually trigger') and key constraint ('immediately'), making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., success/failure responses, execution context), error handling, and integration with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (server_id, task_id). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying they identify the task to run, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('manually trigger') and resource ('a scheduled task'), specifying it happens 'immediately'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like server_create_task (creates) and server_get_task (reads), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from server_update_task (which might modify rather than trigger).
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 is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the task must exist, be scheduled), nor does it contrast with similar tools like server_update_task or server_send_command for immediate actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Start a Minecraft server' implies a state-changing operation, but the description doesn't mention permissions required, whether this is synchronous/asynchronous, what happens if the server is already running, or any rate limits. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information immediately. Every word earns its place in conveying the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'starting' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, error conditions, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. Given the complexity of server management and the rich sibling toolset, more contextual information would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'server_id' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start') and resource ('a Minecraft server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'server_restart' or 'server_run_task', which could involve similar server activation scenarios.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'server_restart' or 'server_run_task'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., server must be stopped), exclusions, or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions sending a test message but doesn't specify what the test entails (e.g., a mock payload, response handling), potential side effects (e.g., triggering external systems), or authentication requirements. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to grasp quickly, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of testing a webhook (which involves sending data and potentially receiving responses), the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should do more to explain behavioral aspects like what the test message contains or how success/failure is indicated. Currently, it's insufficient for a tool that interacts with external systems.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('server_id' and 'webhook_id') as required IDs. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying these are needed to identify the webhook to test, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('send a test message') and the resource ('to verify a webhook is working'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'server_get_webhook' or 'server_update_webhook', which would require mentioning it's for testing functionality rather than retrieval or configuration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'server_get_webhook' for checking webhook details or 'server_update_webhook' for modifying settings. It also lacks prerequisites, like needing an existing webhook, which could be inferred but isn't stated explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified configuration fields, error handling, or response format. The 'etc.' suggests incomplete coverage of updatable fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. The parenthetical examples provide helpful context without unnecessary elaboration. However, the 'etc.' at the end feels like a shortcut that could be more precise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, permission requirements, or side effects. Given the complexity of server configuration updates and the lack of structured safety information, more behavioral context is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions configuration fields like 'name, ports, auto-start' which gives context for what might go in the 'updates' object, but doesn't provide format details or constraints beyond what the schema indicates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('Minecraft server's configuration'), and provides specific examples of what can be updated (name, ports, auto-start, etc.). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'crafty_update_config' or 'server_update_backup_config', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'server_update_backup_config' or 'server_update_file' that might handle specific configuration aspects, there's no indication of scope boundaries or prerequisites for using this general update tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are immediate or require server restart, what happens to existing backup configurations, or error conditions. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a configuration mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a configuration mutation tool with 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens when the tool executes, what the response looks like, error conditions, or dependencies. The combination of mutation operation, multiple parameters, and lack of structured metadata requires more descriptive context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't provide extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('backup configuration for a Minecraft server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'server_update' or 'server_update_config' which might handle other configuration aspects, so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'server_get_backup_config' (for reading) and 'server_backup' (for creating backups), there's no indication of when this update tool is appropriate versus those other backup-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the source ('configured download URL') but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., overwrites existing jar), requires specific permissions, affects server state (e.g., might restart server), or has side effects like downtime. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part ('Update', 'server jar/executable', 'from the configured download URL') contributes essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., what happens post-update), error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity of updating a server executable, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'server_id' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the update applies to a specific server. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('server jar/executable'), specifying it's from a configured download URL. It distinguishes from generic 'server_update' by focusing on the executable/jar update, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other update-related siblings like 'server_update_config' or 'server_update_file'.
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 is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., server must be stopped), conditions (e.g., only if a download URL is set), or comparisons to siblings like 'server_update' (which might update other aspects). Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool can 'write or update' files, which implies mutation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. The example file types hint at configuration files, but no further behavioral context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It includes helpful examples without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured with usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, return values, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects like whether the server restarts after file changes. Given the complexity of file operations on a live server, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'Minecraft server' context and example file types, which provides some semantic context for the 'path' parameter, but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or usage patterns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Write or update a file') and specifies the target resource ('on the Minecraft server'), with examples of common file types. It distinguishes from siblings like server_create_file (which likely creates new files) and server_get_file (which reads files), but doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like server_create_file or server_rename_file. The description implies it's for modifying existing files or writing new ones, but doesn't clarify prerequisites, constraints, or when other tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified task fields. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., error conditions, response format), usage context, and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured safety or output information, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying 'updates' modifies task fields, which the schema already covers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('existing scheduled task for a Minecraft server'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'server_update' or 'server_update_backup_config', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing task), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'server_create_task' or 'server_delete_task', leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates an existing webhook, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like (since there's no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Update an existing webhook for a Minecraft server') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context, and output information, which are critical for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. The high schema coverage helps with inputs, but overall context is insufficient given the tool's potential complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'server_id', 'webhook_id', and 'updates'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't specify what fields can be in 'updates' or provide examples). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('existing webhook for a Minecraft server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'server_create_webhook' and 'server_delete_webhook' by specifying it's for updates, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other webhook-related tools like 'server_test_webhook' or 'server_get_webhook'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing webhook), exclusions (e.g., what can't be updated), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'server_update' or other webhook operations, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a creation/mutation operation ('Generate a new API key'), it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this requires admin permissions, what format the generated key has, whether there are rate limits, or if the operation is idempotent. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., the generated API key value), error conditions, authentication requirements, or permission constraints. Given the security implications of API key generation, more contextual information is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain the significance of '@me' for user_id or provide examples of appropriate name values. This meets the baseline for good schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Generate a new API key') and the target resource ('for a Crafty Controller user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'user_get_api_keys' or 'user_delete_api_key', but the verb 'Generate' distinguishes it from those read/delete operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'user_get_api_keys' or 'user_delete_api_key', nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication requirements or user permissions needed to generate API keys for other users. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'revoke/delete' an API key, which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting active sessions), or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. There's zero waste or redundancy, achieving optimal conciseness for this context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility, permissions), output expectations, or error handling. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially for a tool that modifies system state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('user_id' and 'key_id') documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format examples or constraints like '@me' usage). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('revoke/delete') and resource ('API key for a Crafty Controller user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'user_create_api_key' and 'user_get_api_keys' by focusing on deletion rather than creation or retrieval. However, it doesn't specify whether this affects all keys or just one, which slightly limits specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or constraints. While the tool name and description imply it's for deleting API keys, there's no mention of when this operation is appropriate (e.g., after key compromise) or how it relates to similar tools like 'user_delete' for broader user management. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a tool that accesses user credentials, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the core functionality. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that retrieves sensitive API key information with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what information is returned, security implications, or how to interpret results. The context demands more disclosure than provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description doesn't add any additional context about the user_id parameter beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('API keys for a Crafty Controller user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'user_get' or 'user_get_permissions' beyond the API key focus.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for API key management, or how this relates to other user-related tools like 'user_create_api_key' or 'user_delete_api_key'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains (e.g., format, structure). For a tool that retrieves sensitive permission data, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that retrieves permission data (potentially complex and sensitive), the description is inadequate. There's no output schema, and the description doesn't explain what the return values include (e.g., Crafty permissions vs. server-specific permissions, format). With no annotations and incomplete behavioral context, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'user_id' fully documented in the schema as 'User ID or '@me''. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining what '@me' refers to or providing examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the target ('user's Crafty and per-server permissions'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'user_get' or 'user_get_api_keys', but the specificity about permissions provides reasonable distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'user_get' (which might return basic user info) or 'user_update_permissions' (for modifying permissions). The description implies it's for retrieving permission data but offers no context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., auth needs, side effects), output format, error handling, and differentiation from siblings like user_update_permissions. For a tool that modifies user accounts, more context is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (user_id and updates). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what fields can be in 'updates', format constraints, or special cases like '@me'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('Crafty Controller user account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like user_create, user_delete, and user_get by specifying an update operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from user_update_permissions, which is a more specific sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing authentication), when not to use it (e.g., for permission updates), or direct alternatives like user_update_permissions for permission-specific changes. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but fails to mention critical aspects like required authentication, potential side effects, error conditions, or what the response looks like, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and output format, which are essential for safe and effective tool invocation by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('user_id' and 'permissions'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the permissions object relates to Crafty and server settings, but this is minimal value over the schema's documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and target ('user's Crafty and per-server permissions'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'user_update', which might handle general user updates, leaving some ambiguity about scope differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'user_update' or 'role_update'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing user identification or specific permissions, which is critical for a mutation tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only lists what data is returned but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. It lacks critical information for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, dense sentence that efficiently lists all returned metrics without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get Crafty Controller host system stats') and then enumerates the data. While slightly long due to the list, every part earns its place by specifying the output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does by listing the returned metrics. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only status, auth needs) and does not differentiate from sibling tools, leaving gaps in completeness for an agent to use it correctly in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description does not need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the output semantics by detailing the metrics returned (CPU, RAM, disk, boot time). This adds value beyond the schema, which is minimal here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get Crafty Controller host system stats' followed by specific metrics (CPU, RAM, disk, boot time). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('host system stats'), but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'server_get_stats' which likely provides server-specific stats rather than host-level stats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling tool 'server_get_stats' or explain the distinction between host-level and server-level statistics, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify if authentication is required, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the role_id is invalid. This leaves gaps for a tool that likely involves data retrieval.
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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get details'), making it easy to scan and understand quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error cases. For a read operation with no structured output, more context on return values would improve completeness, but it meets the basic threshold.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'role_id' documented as 'Role ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing instructions. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics without extra description input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('details for a specific role'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'role_list' (which lists roles) and 'role_update' (which modifies roles). However, it could be more specific about what 'details' include, such as permissions or metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid role_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'role_list' for listing all roles or 'user_get' for user details. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves configuration, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, returns structured data, or has any side effects like logging. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get configuration for a specific scheduled task') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and 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 tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' entails or the return format, which could be crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively. However, it meets basic requirements for a straightforward get operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (server_id and task_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or relationship between parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get configuration') and resource ('a specific scheduled task'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar siblings like 'server_get', 'server_get_file', or 'server_get_webhook' beyond specifying it's for tasks, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'server_list_tasks' (for listing) and 'server_update_task' (for modifying), there's no indication of prerequisites, such as needing to list tasks first to obtain a task_id, or when retrieval versus other operations is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation by using 'List,' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether it's a safe operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('List all backups for a Minecraft server') and adds useful details ('with timestamps and sizes'). There is no wasted wording, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on usage, behavior, and output format. Without annotations or output schema, more detail on what the list returns (e.g., structure, limitations) would improve completeness for a tool in this environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'server_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter usage, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all backups') and resource ('for a Minecraft server'), specifying what information is included ('with timestamps and sizes'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'server_get_backup_config' or 'server_restore_backup' by focusing on listing rather than configuration or restoration. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'server_backup' (which likely creates backups), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid server ID), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'server_list' (for servers) or 'server_get_history' (which might include backup history). The description assumes context but offers no explicit usage rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a listing operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes hidden files, handles errors, or has rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a straightforward listing tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (listing files/directories), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details, leaving the agent to infer or guess about the operation's full scope and behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('server_id' and 'path') thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as path format examples or server_id constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('files and directories in a Minecraft server's directory'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'server_get_file' or 'server_list_backups', which would require a more precise scope definition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'server_get_file' (for retrieving specific file content) and 'server_list_backups' (for listing backups), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this directory listing operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'List' tasks, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes task details or just names, or has rate limits. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format, which are important for a list operation. With no annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets a bare minimum for such a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'server_id' documented as 'Server ID or UUID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or format specifics. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra help from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all scheduled tasks for a Minecraft server'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'server_get_task' (which retrieves a single task) or 'server_run_task' (which executes a task), missing an opportunity for full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing server access), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'server_get_task' for single tasks or 'server_list' for general server listing, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return fields (user_id, username, etc.), which is helpful, but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this requires authentication, if there are rate limits, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all Crafty Controller users') and adds necessary detail about return values. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and return fields, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth needs, pagination) and usage guidelines. For a simple read operation, it meets basic needs but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter (ids_only). The description does not add any additional meaning or context about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior or implications of using ids_only. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Crafty Controller users'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like user_get (which retrieves a single user) and user_create (which creates users). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from user_list_api_keys or other list operations, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to use user_list versus user_get (for a single user) or user_get_api_keys (for API keys). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple get operation. However, without annotations or output details, it lacks completeness for behavioral aspects like authentication needs or return format, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it correctly in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 params, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Crafty Controller panel configuration settings', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'crafty_update_config' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'crafty_get_schema' or 'crafty_get_stats', which are also get operations on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether authentication is required or if it should be used over other get-related tools like 'crafty_get_schema' for configuration-specific needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation by using 'List,' but doesn't disclose pagination, sorting, permissions required, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavior, usage, or output, which could hinder an agent in complex scenarios. It's complete enough for basic understanding but not for robust 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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets the baseline for no parameters. No additional semantic value is required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all') and resource ('roles in Crafty Controller'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'user_list' or 'server_list' beyond specifying the resource type, which keeps it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, the description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context for usage, or how it differs from related tools like 'role_get' or 'user_list'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool triggers a backup but doesn't describe what happens during the backup (e.g., server performance impact, whether the server is paused), permissions required, rate limits, or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure, backup ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('trigger an immediate backup') and resource ('Minecraft server's files'). There is zero wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool that initiates a backup process), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like what the backup includes, how long it takes, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that likely has side effects, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'server_id' documented as 'Server ID or UUID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as where to find the server_id or format examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('trigger an immediate backup') and resource ('Minecraft server's files'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like server_list_backups (which lists backups) and server_restore_backup (which restores from a backup). The verb 'trigger' implies initiation of a process rather than just querying.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the server must be running), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like server_update_backup_config (which configures backup settings) or server_delete_backup (which removes backups).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the server must not be running, which is a useful behavioral constraint. However, it fails to disclose critical traits like what gets cloned (e.g., settings, files), permissions required, rate limits, or what the clone operation entails (e.g., creates a new server instance). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Clone an existing Minecraft server') and adds a necessary constraint ('server must not be running') concisely. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a cloning operation (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what is cloned, the result (e.g., returns a new server ID), error conditions, or dependencies. For a tool that likely creates a new resource, this is inadequate to guide an agent fully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'server_id' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Clone') and resource ('an existing Minecraft server'), specifying the server must not be running. It distinguishes from siblings like 'server_create' by focusing on duplication rather than creation from scratch. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other cloning-related tools (none in siblings), keeping it at 4.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating the server must not be running, which provides some context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'server_create' or prerequisites beyond the running state. No clear exclusions or named alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves configuration but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get backup configuration for a Minecraft server') and adds specific details in parentheses without unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes to clarity, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for basic understanding. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, authentication needs) and output format, which are important for a configuration retrieval tool. The absence of an output schema increases the need for more context in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'server_id' documented as 'Server ID or UUID'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints on the ID format. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('backup configuration for a Minecraft server'), with explicit details on what configuration aspects are retrieved (compression, exclusions, schedule, max backups). It distinguishes from siblings like 'server_list_backups' (which lists backups) and 'server_update_backup_config' (which modifies configuration).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing server access), exclusions (e.g., not for modifying configuration), or direct comparisons to sibling tools like 'server_get' (general server info) or 'crafty_get_config' (possibly broader configuration).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a read operation, which is clear, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, file size limitations, error conditions (e.g., if file doesn't exist), or whether it returns raw text or structured data. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to understand operational constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and includes helpful examples without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that reads file contents. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., text content, JSON structure, error formats), which is critical for an AI agent to handle responses. However, the purpose is clear, and parameters are well-documented in the schema, making it minimally viable but with significant gaps in behavioral and output context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (server_id and path) adequately. The description adds minimal value by implying the path parameter should point to specific file types (e.g., configuration files), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read the contents') and target resource ('a file on a Minecraft server'), with specific examples provided. It distinguishes from siblings like server_list_files (which lists files) and server_update_file (which modifies files). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from server_get (which might retrieve server metadata rather than file contents).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning example file types (server.properties, ops.json, whitelist.json), suggesting it's for reading configuration or management files. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like server_get_logs (for log files) or server_get_stats (for statistics), nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('force-kill') and immediacy, but lacks details on permissions required, potential data loss, side effects, or error conditions. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Force-kill') and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety warnings, return values, or error handling, which are critical for a force-kill operation in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'server_id', so the schema already documents it adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Force-kill') and resource ('a Minecraft server process'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'server_stop' or 'server_restart' by emphasizing immediacy. It uses precise language that conveys urgency and finality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through 'force-kill' and 'immediately', suggesting it's for urgent termination, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'server_stop' or 'server_restart'. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves data for graphing trends, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, data format, pagination, or error handling. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes additional context without redundancy. Every part of the sentence adds value, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving historical data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and data types but omits behavioral details like response format, time range parameters, or error conditions. For a tool with no structured support, it provides a basic but insufficient overview.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'server_id' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get historical runtime statistics') and resource ('Minecraft server'), with explicit details about the data retrieved ('CPU, RAM over time') and its purpose ('useful for graphing trends'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'server_get_stats' by emphasizing historical trend data rather than current statistics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for graphing trends, which provides some context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'server_get_stats' (for current stats) or other data retrieval tools. No guidance is given on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool sends commands to a 'running' server (implying the server must be active), it doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether commands are synchronous/asynchronous, error handling, or rate limits. The examples suggest administrative actions but don't explicitly warn about destructive potential.
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?
Extremely concise and well-structured. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by relevant examples that earn their place by illustrating command syntax and common use cases. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and provides helpful examples, but lacks important contextual information about behavioral characteristics, error responses, and operational constraints that would be needed for robust agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it clarifies that commands should be 'without leading slash' (useful context) and provides examples that illustrate the 'command' parameter's expected format, but doesn't add significant semantic depth.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('send a command') and target ('to a running Minecraft server's console'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like server_start or server_get_logs. It provides concrete examples that illustrate the tool's function beyond just the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through the examples (e.g., administrative commands like 'op PlayerName'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like server_update or server_run_task. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool sends a configured stop command, hinting at graceful shutdown behavior, but fails to mention critical details like required permissions, whether it's destructive (likely yes, as it stops a server), rate limits, or what happens if the server is already stopped. This leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Stop a Minecraft server') and adds necessary clarification ('sends configured stop command') without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a destructive tool. It covers the basic purpose and hints at behavior but lacks details on permissions, effects, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that likely alters server state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'server_id' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Stop') and resource ('a Minecraft server'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'server_kill' (immediate termination) and 'server_restart' (stop then start) by specifying it sends a configured stop command, indicating a graceful shutdown process.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning 'configured stop command,' suggesting it should be used for normal shutdowns rather than forceful termination (server_kill). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like server_restart or server_kill, and does not mention prerequisites such as server state or permissions.
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 indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and specifies the data returned, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's real-time versus cached data. The description adds value by listing metrics but lacks operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates key metrics without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by clarifying scope and content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete: it specifies the metrics returned but lacks details on format, pagination, or error handling. For a read-only tool with one parameter, it's adequate but has gaps in behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (server_id), so the schema already documents it fully. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter usage or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get live runtime statistics') and resource ('Minecraft server'), with a detailed list of included metrics (CPU/RAM usage, player count/list, world name/size, MOTD, version, running status). It distinguishes from siblings like server_get (general server info) or server_get_logs by specifying runtime statistics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for monitoring server performance, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., server_get for static configuration, server_get_logs for logs, or server_list for basic listings). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context by stating 'Does not require authentication,' which informs the agent about authentication needs—a key behavioral trait. It doesn't mention other aspects like rate limits or response format, but for a simple read-only tool with zero parameters, this is reasonably transparent without being misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first part and adds an important behavioral note ('Does not require authentication') in the second. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without any waste, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity—0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema—the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and adds authentication context. However, it doesn't describe the return values (e.g., what format the API version and MOTD are in), which could be helpful since there's no output schema. For a low-complexity tool, this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. It gets a baseline score of 4 because the schema fully covers the lack of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get Crafty Controller API version information and message of the day (MOTD).' It specifies the verb ('Get') and the resources ('API version information' and 'MOTD'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'crafty_get_stats' or 'crafty_get_config', which might also retrieve information but about different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by stating 'Does not require authentication,' which implies this tool can be used without login credentials, unlike tools such as 'crafty_login'. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crafty_get_stats' for server statistics or 'crafty_get_config' for configuration details, leaving the choice somewhat implied based on the resource needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists servers but does not describe behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'List' but not confirmed). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all Minecraft servers') and adds necessary details (managed by Crafty Controller with specific attributes). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or wasted information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple list operation), no parameters, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It specifies what information is returned but lacks details on output format (e.g., JSON structure), error cases, or dependencies like authentication. With no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, making it complete in this regard. A baseline of 4 is applied as it meets expectations for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific verb ('List') and resource ('all Minecraft servers managed by Crafty Controller'), including the scope of information returned (IDs, names, types, ports, and configurations). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'server_get' (which retrieves a single server) and 'server_list_backups' (which lists backups rather than servers).
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 context by specifying 'all Minecraft servers managed by Crafty Controller,' suggesting this is for retrieving a comprehensive list. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'server_get' for a single server or provide exclusions (e.g., not for filtered lists).
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 mentions the superuser privilege requirement, which is valuable context, but doesn't cover other aspects like what happens on success/failure, whether the operation is idempotent, or rate limits. It's adequate but has clear gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste—it states the purpose and a key constraint efficiently. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action.
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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the essential action and privilege requirement. However, it lacks details on return values, error conditions, or side effects, which would be helpful given the tool's complexity (7 parameters). It's viable but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., superuser and manager). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a new Crafty Controller user account') with the resource ('user account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like user_update, user_delete, and user_list. It's precise about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit context for when to use this tool ('Requires superuser privileges'), indicating prerequisites. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives like user_update for modifying existing users, which would make it 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a destructive operation ('permanently delete') and specifies privilege requirements, which are crucial behavioral traits. However, it doesn't address potential consequences, confirmation steps, or whether the action is reversible, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core action and resource, the second provides critical usage context. It's front-loaded with the most important information and contains zero 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?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal information. It covers the destructive nature and privilege requirements, which are essential, but doesn't address return values, error conditions, or system impacts that would be helpful given the tool's high-stakes nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'user_id' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expectation without adding extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('permanently delete') and resource ('Crafty Controller user account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like user_get, user_list, user_update, and user_create. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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 ('Requires superuser privileges'), providing important context about authorization requirements. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like user_update for deactivation scenarios, which would be helpful for sibling differentiation.
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 clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Get details'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific details are returned. It provides basic context about the '@me' special case but lacks comprehensive behavioral information.
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 sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides crucial usage guidance about the '@me' special case. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does and provides the '@me' special case, but doesn't describe what user details are returned, authentication requirements, or potential error scenarios. The description is minimally viable but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds valuable semantic context by explaining the special meaning of '@me' as a value for user_id, which goes beyond the schema's description. This additional meaning is helpful for correct tool 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 specific action ('Get details') and resource ('Crafty Controller user'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like user_list (which lists users) and user_get_permissions (which gets permissions). It provides a precise verb+resource combination with clear scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool ('to get details for a specific user') and includes the special case '@me' for the current authenticated user. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives like user_list for listing all users.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive and safe, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description adds basic context but lacks detailed 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?
The description is two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides essential usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core function and efficiently structured, making every sentence earn its place.
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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and usage, but lacks details on authentication, error cases, or return values, which could be helpful since no annotations or output schema exist. It's adequate but has minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'schema_name' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by repeating the reference to crafty_list_schemas, but doesn't provide additional semantic context like format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get a specific JSON schema by name') and resource ('from Crafty Controller'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like crafty_list_schemas (which lists schemas) and other server/user/role tools. It precisely communicates the tool's function without redundancy.
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 provides usage guidance by stating 'Use crafty_list_schemas to discover available schema names,' which tells the agent when to use this tool (after identifying schema names) and references an alternative tool for discovery. This directly addresses when and how to use it in 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds value by specifying that authentication is not required, which is a key behavioral trait not inferable from the input schema alone. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., list structure, pagination) or potential errors, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all available JSON schema names in Crafty Controller') and adds a crucial behavioral note ('Does not require authentication') without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence provides essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for its purpose. However, it lacks details on the return values (e.g., format of the list, error conditions), which would be helpful since there is no output schema. This gap prevents a higher score despite the simple context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps, as there are none. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter information, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List all available JSON schema names') and resource ('in Crafty Controller'), distinguishing it from siblings like crafty_get_schema (which retrieves a specific schema) and other list tools (e.g., server_list, user_list) that target different resources. It precisely defines the scope without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by stating 'Does not require authentication,' which is useful for understanding prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like crafty_get_schema (for detailed schema retrieval) or other list tools, leaving some sibling differentiation implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the scheduling behavior (interval vs cron) which is valuable, but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether tasks persist across server restarts, error conditions, or what happens on creation success/failure. For a creation tool with 12 parameters and no annotations, more behavioral context would be helpful.
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 tightly focused sentences with zero waste. The first establishes purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance with concrete examples. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (the two scheduling approaches) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well on scheduling mechanics but leaves gaps. It doesn't cover what the tool returns, error conditions, permissions required, or how the task integrates with the server system. The parameter guidance is strong, but broader context is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the relationship between interval_type, interval, and cron_string parameters - specifically that interval_type should be empty string when using cron_string. This clarifies parameter interdependencies that aren't obvious from the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a scheduled task') and resource ('for a Minecraft server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like server_run_task (executes immediately) and server_delete_task (removes tasks). It provides concrete purpose beyond just the tool name.
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 provides when-to-use guidance by explaining the two scheduling approaches: 'Use interval_type with interval for simple schedules' and 'set cron_string with empty interval_type for cron-based schedules'. It gives concrete examples (e.g., 'every 6 hours', '0 3 * * * for 3 AM daily') that help the agent choose between parameter combinations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral outcome (obtaining a bearer token) and mentions MFA requirements indirectly via the TOTP parameter note. However, it lacks details on error conditions, rate limits, session duration, or security implications. The description adds some context but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded appropriately for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (authentication with optional MFA), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the purpose and when to use it. However, it lacks details on the bearer token's format, expiration, or how to use it in subsequent requests. For an authentication tool without output schema, this is a minor gap, but the description is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but it implicitly reinforces the purpose of username/password for authentication. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description's clear linkage to the tool's purpose justifies a slightly higher score.
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: 'Login with username and password to get a bearer token.' It specifies the verb (login), resources (username/password), and outcome (bearer token). It also distinguishes this authentication method from alternatives by mentioning 'pre-generated API token,' making it distinct from sibling tools that don't handle authentication.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this if you prefer username/password authentication over a pre-generated API token.' This directly addresses the alternative authentication method and gives clear context for choosing this tool over other approaches, though it doesn't mention specific sibling tools since authentication is unique in this context.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/HadiCherkaoui/crafty-mcp'

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