Kapiti MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
The tools are generally well-differentiated by resource (e.g., content_site, staging_site, user, account) and action (e.g., get, create, update, delete), with clear boundaries. However, some tools like 'update_content_site' and 'update_staging_site' could be confused due to similar naming and overlapping domains, and 'health' and 'ping' are both diagnostic tools that might overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
The naming follows a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as 'create_content_site', 'get_staging_site_page', and 'delete_user'. All tools use snake_case uniformly, with verbs like 'create', 'get', 'update', 'delete', 'upload', 'publish', and 'revert' applied predictably across resources, making the set easy to navigate.
Tool Count2/5
With 43 tools, the count is excessive for the apparent domain of content and staging site management, user and account handling, and basic diagnostics. This high number suggests over-fragmentation, such as separate tools for logs and sections, which could overwhelm agents and reduce usability despite the comprehensive coverage.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete CRUD/lifecycle coverage for all key domains: content sites, staging sites (including pages, sections, and files), users, and accounts. It includes advanced operations like publishing, reverting, uploading files, and diagnostics (health/ping), with no obvious gaps that would hinder agent workflows in this context.
Average 2.7/5 across 43 of 43 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Clone' implies a write operation that creates a new resource, but the description doesn't disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether the clone overwrites existing data, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap that leaves the agent guessing about side effects and outcomes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence 'Clone a staging site', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it's under-specified in terms of content, it earns full marks for brevity and structure, as every word directly relates to the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a cloning operation (a mutation that likely creates a new staging site copy), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'clone' entails (e.g., copying content, configuration, or both), success/failure conditions, or how it differs from similar tools. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly in 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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'contentSiteId', 'stagingSiteId', 'newName'). The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as explaining relationships between them (e.g., that 'contentSiteId' is the source and 'stagingSiteId' is the target). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate with any contextual insights.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Clone a staging site' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'clone_staging_site' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what resources are involved (e.g., cloning from a content site to a staging site) or distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_staging_site' or 'revert_staging_site'. The description lacks a clear verb+resource combination that explains the actual operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing content and staging sites), use cases (e.g., creating a copy for testing), or exclusions (e.g., not for creating new sites from scratch). With multiple sibling tools for managing staging sites, this absence of context makes it difficult for an agent to select the correct tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to the staging vs published content, or any rate limits/constraints. For a tool that appears to modify site state, this lack of transparency is critical.
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 maximally concise at just 5 words with no wasted language. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, the description itself is efficiently structured as a single declarative statement that gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this appears to be a mutation tool (publishing implies changing state) with no annotations, no output schema, and a complex ecosystem of sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what publishing entails, what the outcome looks like, how it differs from full site publishing, or any behavioral characteristics. The description fails to provide the contextual understanding needed for safe and effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters with basic descriptions. The tool description adds zero additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Publish a staging site section' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name/title without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'publish' means operationally or what distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'publish_staging_site' or 'revert_staging_site_section'. The description lacks the verb+resource specificity needed for clear differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple related tools like 'publish_staging_site', 'revert_staging_site_section', and various create/update/delete operations for staging site components, the description fails to indicate appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about proper tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with 12 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is critically insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with no wasted language. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative, which prevents a perfect score.
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 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'staging site information' encompasses, how updates affect the system, what values are returned, or any behavioral characteristics. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the lack of 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 12 parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage through schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update staging site information' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update_content_site' and title 'Update Staging Site'. It doesn't specify what kind of information can be updated or distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_staging_site', 'update_staging_site_page', or 'update_staging_site_section' that also perform updates on related resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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, distinguish it from other update tools in the sibling list, or indicate what makes this tool appropriate for updating content site information versus staging site information specifically.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description provides zero information about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when the operation succeeds. This is inadequate for a mutation 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 extremely concise at just 5 words. While it's under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every word earns its place by stating the core action, though it fails to provide necessary additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, what fields can be modified, how this differs from other update operations, or what the expected outcome is. The description fails to provide the minimal context needed for safe and correct tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a staging site page' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name and title without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what aspects of the page are updated, how this differs from other update tools like update_staging_site_section, or what resource is being modified beyond the obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this should be used instead of create_staging_site_page or delete_staging_site_page, or any contextual constraints. With multiple sibling update tools, this is a critical omission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't reveal any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the update is destructive or reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or what the tool returns. This leaves critical behavioral aspects completely undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just four words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update') and target ('staging site section'), though this minimalism comes at the cost of completeness. Every word serves a purpose, making it structurally efficient despite its informational deficiencies.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the basic verb, provide usage context, describe behavioral characteristics, or hint at return values. For a mutation tool with multiple required parameters, this minimal description fails to give the AI agent sufficient context 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter documented in the schema itself. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter details in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a staging site section' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name and title without adding specificity. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, what a 'staging site section' is, or how this differs from similar tools like 'update_staging_site_page' or 'update_content_site'. The description provides no meaningful elaboration beyond the tool's name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_staging_site' or 'update_staging_site_page', or indicate when not to use it. Without any usage context, an AI agent would struggle to select this tool appropriately among the many update-related options available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states 'Update user information' without mentioning permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for such a minimal statement, though this conciseness comes at the expense of helpful content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain behavioral aspects, usage context, or what constitutes a successful update, leaving critical gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters (id, email, firstName, lastName, claims) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, 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.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update user information' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name/title without specifying what information can be updated or how this differs from sibling tools like 'update_account' or 'register_user'. It provides a basic verb+resource but lacks specificity about scope or differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_account', 'create_user', or 'register_user'. The description offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It doesn't indicate whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects associated resources (e.g., pages, sections), or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a destructive operation 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's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like purpose clarity and behavioral transparency.
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 incomplete. It lacks critical context such as the irreversible nature of deletion, error handling, or what happens to dependent resources (e.g., pages, sections). Given the complexity and sibling tools like revert_staging_site, more guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (contentSiteId, reason, stagingSiteId) with basic descriptions. The description adds no meaning beyond this, such as explaining parameter relationships (e.g., stagingSiteId must belong to contentSiteId) or format details, but the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a staging site' is a tautology that restates the tool name and title without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what resource is being deleted (e.g., a temporary development environment) or distinguish it from sibling tools like delete_content_site or delete_staging_site_page, which 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 Guidelines1/5
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 staging site to exist), exclusions (e.g., not for published sites), or relationships with sibling tools like revert_staging_site or publish_staging_site, which might be relevant alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation operation ('update') but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it lacks front-loaded critical information, such as distinguishing features or usage context, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'account information' entails beyond the schema's 'name', fails to address error handling or return values, and omits context needed for safe and effective use among many sibling 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%, with the single parameter 'name' documented as 'Account name'. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't elaborate on parameter usage, constraints, or examples. Baseline score of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update account information' restates the tool name/title with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'update' and resource 'account information', but lacks specificity about what aspects can be updated or how it differs from sibling tools like 'update_user' or 'update_content_site'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'update_user' and 'update_content_site', the description offers no context about distinctions, prerequisites, or appropriate scenarios for account updates, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states it's an update operation. It doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. 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's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail, making it under-specified rather than verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details, failing to compensate for the absence of structured data, which is insufficient for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage. Baseline is 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update staging site information' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'update_staging_site' and title 'Update Staging Site' without adding specificity. It mentions the verb 'update' and resource 'staging site' but lacks details about what information gets updated or how it differs from sibling tools like 'update_content_site' or 'update_staging_site_page'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a staging site ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'update_content_site' or 'update_staging_site_page', leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but only mentions the action without behavioral details. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a tool with two required 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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it is overly terse and could benefit from slightly more detail to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., what 'pages' includes), error conditions, or operational context, making it insufficient for a tool that likely returns structured data based on two required IDs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond stating parameters are used 'by ID', which is implied by the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool retrieves staging site pages using IDs, which clarifies the verb (get) and resource (staging site pages). However, it lacks specificity about what 'pages' entails (e.g., metadata, content, or list) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_staging_site_page' (singular), leaving ambiguity in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_staging_site_page' (singular) or 'get_staging_site' (site-level data). The description only states the action without context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering minimal help for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states it 'gets details' without specifying what kind of details are returned, whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, or how errors are handled. For a read operation 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of missing important contextual information that would help an agent use the tool effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, how the parameters relate to each other, or provide any context about the staging site system. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional information.
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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get details of a staging site section', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_staging_site' or 'get_staging_site_page', which also retrieve staging site components. The description is accurate but lacks 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 siblings like 'get_staging_site' (for overall site details) and 'get_staging_site_page' (for page details), there's no indication of when this specific section-focused tool is appropriate versus those other retrieval 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. It states the action is 'delete,' implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a destructive 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 with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 the tool's complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like what 'delete' entails (e.g., permanent removal, side effects), expected outcomes, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient context 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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Content Site ID' and 'Reason for deletion'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a content site' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (content site), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_staging_site' or 'delete_user', which follow the same pattern, leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes a 'content site' from other deletable entities.
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 clarify if this should be used for permanent removal versus archiving, or if there are prerequisites like checking dependencies first. The sibling tools include other deletion operations, but the description offers no context to help an agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, but the description provides no information about permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any 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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or consequences, nor does it explain what happens upon successful deletion. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall completeness is poor for this type of 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four required parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, resulting in the baseline score of 3.
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 resource ('a staging site section'), which provides specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling deletion tools like delete_staging_site or delete_staging_site_page, which target different resources within the same domain.
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 multiple sibling tools that delete different staging site components (site, page, section), there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool's scope or when it's appropriate versus other deletion tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'get' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the return format is (e.g., list, object), or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented, though it doesn't contradict any 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words: 'Get system reference data and lookups'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to the basic understanding, though it could be more informative.
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 data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'reference data' includes, the return format, or any behavioral aspects like safety or permissions. With no output schema to clarify results, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful, but it falls short.
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 'category' documented as 'Reference data category to filter by'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of categories or how filtering works. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get[s] system reference data and lookups', which provides a basic verb+resource combination ('get' + 'reference data'). However, it's vague about what 'reference data' entails (e.g., types, formats, or examples) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_account' or 'get_user', which also retrieve data. This leaves the purpose somewhat ambiguous despite being clear at a high level.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts (e.g., for configuration vs. user data), and with many sibling tools for retrieving various data types, the lack of differentiation makes it hard for an agent to choose appropriately. Usage is implied only by the name, not explained.
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 ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the configuration includes. This is inadequate 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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it appropriately sized for its 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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the configuration includes, error handling, or behavioral context, making it insufficient for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('contentSiteId' and 'stagingSiteId'). The description adds no meaning beyond this, such as explaining the relationship between these IDs or format examples. 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose ('Get staging site configuration') and specifies it's done 'by ID', which clarifies the retrieval method. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_staging_site' or 'get_staging_site_page', which also retrieve staging site data by ID, making the purpose somewhat vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing specific IDs, or differentiate it from similar tools like 'get_staging_site', leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'change logs' and 'since last publish', which hints at read-only behavior and temporal filtering, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether this is a safe read operation, what format the logs are in, if there are rate limits, or authentication needs. For a log retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could benefit from more detail. Every word earns its place by conveying the core function.
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 (log retrieval with temporal filtering), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the logs contain, their format, or how 'since last publish' is interpreted. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this leaves significant 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 both parameters ('contentSiteId' and 'stagingSiteId') documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between these IDs or how they affect the logs. 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Change logs since last publish' states what the tool does (retrieves logs of changes) but is vague about the resource scope. It doesn't specify that these are logs for a staging site (implied by the name) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_content_site_logs' or 'get_staging_site_page_logs'. The purpose is understandable but lacks 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_content_site_logs', 'get_staging_site_page_logs', and 'get_staging_site_section_logs', the description doesn't clarify the context (e.g., for site-level vs. page-level logs) or any prerequisites. Usage is implied only by the tool name, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get details' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if IDs are invalid. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves critical 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 details of a staging site page'). It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, how errors are handled, or any dependencies (e.g., needing valid IDs). For a tool with 4 required parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Content site ID', 'Include page sections'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get details of a staging site page' clearly states the action (get) and resource (staging site page details), but it's vague about what 'details' include. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_staging_site_pages' (list) but not from 'get_staging_site_page_logs' or 'get_staging_site_section', 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a staging site ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_staging_site_pages' for listing or 'get_staging_site_section' for section details, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new content site' which implies a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the creation is reversible (e.g., via 'delete_content_site'), 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 action and resource. It wastes no words and directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits like side effects, error conditions, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly. While the schema covers the single parameter well, the overall context for a creation tool is underspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage with a clear 'name' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't elaborate on the 'name' parameter's semantics (e.g., uniqueness constraints, length limits, or formatting), but this isn't required given the schema's completeness.
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 ('content site in the current account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'clone_staging_site' or 'create_staging_site_page' by specifying it creates a content site rather than a staging site or its components. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_user' or 'register_user' in terms of resource type, 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., account context), exclusions (e.g., when not to create a site), or comparisons to siblings like 'create_staging_site' (if applicable) or 'update_content_site'. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent to infer usage based on tool names 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 a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the page is immediately visible, if it can be reverted, or what happens on duplicate identifiers. For a mutation 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 any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects (permissions, side effects), provide usage context, or explain the return value. While concise, it leaves too many open questions for an agent to use this tool confidently without additional documentation.
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 all parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between 'contentSiteId' and 'stagingSiteId' or format expectations for 'identifier'). 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 ('new page in a staging site'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_content_site' or 'create_staging_site_section' by specifying it's for pages rather than sites or sections, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'update_staging_site_page'.
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 staging site first), exclusions (e.g., not for published sites), or comparisons to similar tools like 'create_content_site' or 'update_staging_site_page'. The agent must infer usage from the name and 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 full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose required permissions, whether the creation is reversible (see sibling 'delete_staging_site_section'), rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. 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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, though it could benefit from additional context in subsequent sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage guidelines relative to siblings, and details on the return value, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'section' creation, which aligns with the schema but doesn't explain parameter relationships (e.g., how 'contentSiteId' and 'stagingSiteId' interact) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter 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 ('Create') and target resource ('new section in a staging site page'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_staging_site_page' or 'create_content_site', which would require more specific context about what a 'section' entails versus a 'page' or 'site'.
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 staging site or page), exclusions, or refer to sibling tools like 'create_staging_site_page' for creating pages first, 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 full burden. 'Create a new user' implies a write operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the user is activated immediately, what happens on duplicate email, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving perfect conciseness for such a straightforward tool.
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 the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or dependencies. For a user creation tool in a system with many sibling operations, more context is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 5 parameters well-documented in the schema (email, firstName, lastName, password, claims). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in 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 action ('Create') and resource ('new user in the current account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'register_user' or 'update_user' by specifying creation rather than modification or registration. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'clone_staging_site' or other creation tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 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 'register_user' or 'update_user'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), constraints (e.g., email uniqueness), or typical use cases. With many sibling tools available, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.
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 destructive action ('Delete') but lacks critical behavioral details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, error conditions (e.g., if page doesn't exist), or side effects (e.g., impact on linked content). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
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 information 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?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., permanence, permissions), usage guidelines, and output expectations. Given the complexity of deletion operations and the absence of structured safety hints, more descriptive content is needed to adequately inform the 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 all three parameters (contentSiteId, stagingSiteId, pageId) documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or interdependencies. 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 ('Delete') and the resource ('a staging site page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling deletion tools like delete_staging_site or delete_staging_site_section, which target different resources within the same domain.
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., the page must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete published pages), or related tools (e.g., delete_staging_site for entire sites). This leaves the agent without context for appropriate selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a user' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is permanent, requires admin permissions, affects associated data (e.g., sites), or has rate limits. For a high-risk tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a user'), making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, achieving perfect conciseness for such a straightforward tool.
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 high complexity (destructive mutation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, irreversibility, or side effects, nor does it explain return values. For a delete operation, this leaves critical gaps for safe agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('id' and 'reason'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the format of 'id' or when 'reason' is required. However, with 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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_user' or 'update_user' by specifying the destructive action. However, it doesn't specify what 'system' refers to or the scope of deletion (e.g., permanent vs. soft delete), 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., user must exist), consequences (e.g., data loss), or when to choose other tools like 'update_user' for deactivation instead. With siblings like 'create_user' and 'update_user', this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.
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 a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what 'accounts' entails (e.g., user accounts, admin accounts). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'accounts' means in this context (e.g., type, structure, or scope), potential return values, or any side effects. For a retrieval tool with one parameter, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'contentSiteId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter is required to fetch accounts, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'accounts associated with a content site', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from general 'get_account' by specifying content-site association, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools like 'get_content_site_claims' or 'get_content_site_logs' which also retrieve content-site-related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid contentSiteId), exclusions, or comparisons to similar sibling tools like 'get_account' (which might retrieve individual accounts) or 'get_content_site_claims' (which retrieves different associated data).
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 states 'Get' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'claims' specifically entails (e.g., permissions, ownership details). This leaves 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 without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no wasted 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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'claims' are, the return format, or any behavioral context needed for a tool that likely involves user permissions or access rights, which are critical 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%, with the parameter 'contentSiteId' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or context for the ID), so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating 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 ('Get') and target resource ('current user claims for the content site'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_content_site' or 'get_content_site_accounts', which also retrieve content site 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone among many similar 'get' 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 the full burden. It mentions 'last 15 activity logs', which adds some behavioral context (limit and recency), but fails to disclose critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, error conditions, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
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 the last 15 activity logs for a content site'). There is no wasted language, and it directly communicates 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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., log format, fields), error handling, and operational constraints. For a tool that fetches data, this omission makes it difficult for an agent to use effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'contentSiteId' parameter fully. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints), but with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate.
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 ('activity logs for a content site'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_staging_site_logs' or 'get_content_site_hits', which would require more specific language about what makes this tool unique.
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 available (e.g., 'get_content_site_hits', 'get_staging_site_logs'), there is no indication of when this specific log-fetching tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other data retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what the output format is. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves 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, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, and there's no wasted verbiage or 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 the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving published sites), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'published sites' entails (e.g., list of URLs, site objects), potential errors, or behavioral details like permissions needed. This leaves the agent with insufficient context 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'contentSiteId' documented as 'Content site ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a 'content site' is or how to obtain its ID. Since the schema already covers the parameter adequately, a 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'published sites for a content site', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_content_site' or 'get_staging_site', which might retrieve different site types, leaving some ambiguity about its unique scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_content_sites' (which might list all sites) or 'get_staging_site' (which might retrieve unpublished versions). It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 extremely concise with a single sentence that front-loads the essential information ('Get staging site details by ID'). There is no wasted language, making it efficient and 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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, potential return values, or any behavioral context. For a tool that likely returns structured data about a staging site, more information is needed to understand its full scope and 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 both parameters ('contentSiteId' and 'stagingSiteId') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that an ID is needed, which is already covered. This meets the baseline score of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('staging site details'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_content_site' or 'get_staging_site_page', which also retrieve details about related entities.
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. With many sibling tools that retrieve different types of site data (e.g., 'get_content_site', 'get_staging_site_pages'), the description offers no context about when this specific retrieval is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other get 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 provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'details' include. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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 read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'details' entail, potential return values, error handling, or usage context. Given the complexity of user data and sibling tools, more completeness is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'id' documented as 'User ID'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool fetches details using this ID, but doesn't provide additional context like ID format or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'user details by ID', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_account' or 'get_content_site' by focusing on users, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar user-related tools like 'create_user' or 'update_user' beyond the action verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid user ID), exclusions (e.g., not for creating or updating users), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_account' or 'register_user'.
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 outcome ('make it live') but lacks details on permissions required, whether the action is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing live content), or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
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 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 lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, reversibility), 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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between 'contentSiteId' and 'stagingSiteId'. 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 ('publish') and resource ('staging site') with the outcome ('to make it live'), which is specific and meaningful. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'publish_staging_site_section', which handles publishing at a section level rather than the entire site.
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 'publish_staging_site_section' or 'revert_staging_site'. The description only states what it does, without context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, 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 full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, whether this sends confirmation emails, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on duplicate registration. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core 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 user registration tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after registration, what values are returned, error handling, or system behavior. The combination of mutation operation and missing structured data 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 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 where 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 ('register') and resource ('new user in the system'), with additional context about 'account creation'. It distinguishes from sibling 'create_user' by specifying registration rather than general creation, though the distinction could be more explicit.
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 'create_user' is provided. The description implies it's for initial user registration but doesn't specify 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool performs a reversion but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is destructive (overwrites current staging site), requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., logs changes), involves rollback mechanisms, or provides confirmation. 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 with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, error conditions, or return values, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly. For a tool that modifies state, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (contentSiteId, reason, stagingSiteId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter relationships (e.g., that contentSiteId and stagingSiteId must correspond) or usage context. 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 ('revert') and target resource ('staging site'), specifying it returns to a 'previous state'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_staging_site' (destructive removal) and 'revert_staging_site_section' (partial reversion). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_staging_site' or 'publish_staging_site', which could involve state changes, making it slightly less specific.
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., needing a previous state to revert to), exclusions (e.g., not for published sites), or compare to siblings like 'revert_staging_site_section' for partial changes or 'update_staging_site' for incremental updates. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is destructive, requires specific permissions, affects other sections, or has rate limits, leaving 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 front-loads the core action without unnecessary words, making it easy to parse and appropriately sized for its 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 lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, or what 'revert' entails (e.g., to what state), leaving the agent with incomplete context 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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying IDs are needed for targeting, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage without 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 ('revert') and target ('staging site section to a previous state'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'revert_staging_site', which reverts an entire staging site rather than a section, missing explicit 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'revert_staging_site' or 'update_staging_site_section' is provided. The description implies usage for reverting sections but lacks context on 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflict, or any side effects. For a file upload tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the essential information efficiently.
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 upload tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and any information about return values or error conditions. The schema covers parameters well, but the overall tool understanding remains inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify relationships between parameters like contentSiteId and stagingSiteId). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Upload') and target resource ('a file to a staging site'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'upload_user_profile_image' which also uploads files, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.
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, constraints, or relationships with sibling tools like 'publish_staging_site' or 'update_staging_site', leaving the agent to infer usage context independently.
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 action ('upload') but doesn't describe what happens during execution: whether it overwrites existing images, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns a confirmation or error details, or affects other user data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('upload') and target ('profile image for a user'), making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects: what the tool returns (e.g., success status, image URL), error conditions (e.g., invalid user ID, malformed image), or side effects (e.g., whether it triggers notifications). The agent lacks sufficient information to understand the full impact of invoking this 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 clear documentation for both parameters ('userId' and 'image' as base64 encoded data). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as image format requirements (e.g., JPEG/PNG) or user ID validation rules. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides adequate parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('upload') and resource ('profile image for a user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'upload_staging_site_file' by specifying the target resource as a user profile image rather than a staging site file. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other user-related tools like 'update_user' or 'create_user', which could potentially handle profile images indirectly.
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., user must exist), constraints (e.g., image format/size limits), or relationships with sibling tools like 'update_user' that might also modify user data. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify what 'current account information' includes, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'current account information' entails, the response format, or any behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, which are crucial for a read operation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.
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 'current account information', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update_account' or 'get_user', which also involve account/user information retrieval.
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 'get_user' or 'update_account'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, 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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens with invalid IDs, or what format/details are returned. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every element ('Get', 'content site details', 'by ID') earns its place. This is a model of efficient description writing for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does but leaves significant gaps about behavioral characteristics, return values, and usage context. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally hint at what 'details' are returned, but it doesn't.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage with one parameter clearly documented as 'Content Site ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it simply repeats that retrieval is 'by ID' without explaining what constitutes a valid ID, format requirements, or where to obtain IDs. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get content site details by ID', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_content_sites' (plural) by specifying retrieval of a single site by ID. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other similar tools like 'get_staging_site' beyond the resource name difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_content_site' over 'get_content_sites' (for multiple sites) or 'get_staging_site' (for staging vs content sites). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual recommendations 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get daily hits'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify critical details such as permissions required, rate limits, data format (e.g., JSON, CSV), timezone handling, or whether it returns aggregated or raw hits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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 daily hits for a content site') with zero wasted words. It avoids redundancy with the name or title and is appropriately sized for a simple tool, 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.
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 complete. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavioral aspects like data format or usage guidelines. While adequate for basic understanding, it doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema, leaving gaps in operational knowledge.
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 'contentSiteId' documented as 'Content site ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., UUID) or where to find the ID. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles 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 action ('Get daily hits') and resource ('for a content site'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_content_site' or 'get_content_sites' by specifying the metric (hits) and timeframe (daily). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'get_content_site_logs', which might also involve hit data, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid content site ID), exclusions (e.g., not for aggregated or real-time data), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_content_site_logs' that might offer similar functionality. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'content sites' entails (e.g., type, format). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.
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 without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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 siblings including complex operations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., list structure, fields), error handling, or how it fits into broader workflows, making it inadequate for informed use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate, but baseline is 4 since it doesn't compensate for non-existent gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all content sites'), specifying scope ('in the current account'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_content_site' (singular) by indicating retrieval of multiple sites, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'get_published_sites' or 'get_staging_site_pages'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_published_sites' or 'get_content_site' (for a specific site). The description implies usage for retrieving all sites in the account, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves logs (implying read-only behavior) but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what 'change logs' contain. The phrase 'since the last publish' adds some temporal context but lacks detail on default behavior or limitations.
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 without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get the change logs for a staging site page since the last publish') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read operation with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the tool's scope (page-level logs since last publish) but lacks details on return format, error handling, or behavioral constraints. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what 'change logs' contain would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three required parameters (contentSiteId, pageId, stagingSiteId). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between these IDs or format examples. 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 ('Get the change logs') and resource ('for a staging site page'), specifying the scope ('since the last publish'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_staging_site_logs' by focusing on page-level logs, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_staging_site_section_logs' or other log-related tools.
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 implies usage for retrieving page change logs in a staging context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_staging_site_logs' or 'get_staging_site_section_logs'. It mentions 'since the last publish' as a temporal scope but doesn't clarify prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the temporal scope ('since the last publish') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what the logs contain (e.g., format, fields). This is insufficient for a read operation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's 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?
Given the complexity of a logging tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the logs contain, their format, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four required parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond implying a temporal filter, which doesn't compensate for or enhance the schema's details. 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 ('Get logs') and target resource ('for a staging site section'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_staging_site_logs' or 'get_staging_site_page_logs' beyond the 'section' focus, which is why it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'since the last publish,' suggesting this tool is for retrieving recent logs after publishing events. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_staging_site_logs' or 'get_content_site_logs,' 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 full burden. It states the action ('Check the health status') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what 'health status' entails (e.g., uptime, response metrics), whether it's safe for frequent use, or what the output format might be. 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 that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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.
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 annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., what 'health status' means, output format, or usage scenarios), which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively.
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%. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids unnecessary details and focuses on the tool's purpose.
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: 'Check the health status of the Headlesshost API' with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Headlesshost API'). It distinguishes from most siblings (e.g., create/delete/update operations) but not explicitly from 'ping', which might serve a similar diagnostic function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'health' over 'ping' (a sibling tool) or other diagnostic methods, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose as a connectivity test, which implies it's a read-only diagnostic operation. However, it doesn't specify what 'test' entails (e.g., whether it makes actual API calls, returns specific status codes, or has rate limits).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with zero waste - every word contributes essential information. Front-loaded with the core purpose ('Test authentication and connection') followed by the specific target ('to the Headlesshost API').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what the tool does but doesn't describe what constitutes a successful test, what information is returned, or how to interpret results. Given the simplicity of the tool, it's complete enough but leaves some behavioral questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It earns a 4 (not 5) because while it correctly avoids parameter discussion, it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required' which could be helpful context.
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 ('Test authentication and connection') and target resource ('Headlesshost API'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which perform CRUD operations on sites, users, or accounts. It precisely communicates the diagnostic nature of this tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('Test authentication and connection') suggesting it should be used to verify API access before attempting other operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Headlesshost/mcp-server'

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