𓂀𓁢𓋹𝔸ℕ𝕌𝔹𝕀𝕊𓋹𓁢𓂀 - Intelligent Guidance for

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tool set has clear thematic grouping around workflow execution, transitions, and guidance, but there is significant overlap in purpose. For example, get_step_guidance, get_workflow_guidance, and get_next_available_step all provide guidance-related information, which could confuse an agent about which to use. Similarly, execute_mcp_operation and workflow_execution_operations both handle workflow operations, though their descriptions hint at different scopes.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., execute_mcp_operation, generate_workflow_report, get_role_transitions), which aids readability. However, there are minor deviations such as init_rules (verb_noun but abbreviated) and workflow_execution_operations (noun-heavy, less action-oriented), slightly disrupting the pattern.
Tool Count3/5
With 16 tools, the count is borderline for a workflow guidance server. It feels heavy due to overlapping tools, but it might be justified if each serves a distinct niche in a complex domain. The scope appears broad, covering initialization, execution, transitions, reporting, and guidance, which could warrant this number, but it risks being overwhelming.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers key aspects of workflow management: initialization (bootstrap_workflow, init_rules), execution (execute_mcp_operation, workflow_execution_operations), transitions (execute_transition, validate_transition), guidance (get_step_guidance, get_workflow_guidance), and reporting (generate_workflow_report, get_report_status). Minor gaps might exist, such as tools for deleting or archiving workflows, but core workflows are well-supported.
Average 2.9/5 across 16 of 16 tools scored.
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 is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'minimal role identity and basic capabilities' but doesn't explain what 'guidance' actually means - whether it returns instructions, next steps, validation rules, or something else. For a tool with no annotations and unclear behavior, this is insufficient disclosure of how the tool actually behaves when invoked.
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 - a single sentence with 9 words. While this is efficient, it may be too brief given the complexity suggested by the parameter requirements and sibling tool ecosystem. However, every word does contribute to the limited information provided, so it earns points for efficiency despite under-specification.
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 3 parameters (2 required), no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools in a complex workflow system, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'guidance' means, what format it returns, how it differs from other guidance tools, or what 'basic capabilities' refers to. The description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (projectPath, roleName, taskId) with their types and descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 states 'Provides minimal role identity and basic capabilities for workflow execution' which is vague and tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'get_workflow_guidance' without specifying what concrete action it performs. It doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_step_guidance' or 'get_role_transitions' that also seem related to workflow guidance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to workflows (bootstrap_workflow, get_step_guidance, get_role_transitions, etc.), the description offers no context about when this specific guidance tool is appropriate versus other guidance or execution tools in the workflow system.
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 mentions 'follows strict naming conventions' which hints at behavioral constraints, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read or write operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens when operations fail. For a tool that executes operations, this lack of behavioral disclosure is significant.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that avoid redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core purpose statement. However, the second sentence about 'consistent parameters and strict naming conventions' could be more informative rather than just stating characteristics.
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 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what types of operations can be executed, what the expected outcomes are, or how this differs from other execution tools. The lack of behavioral context and usage guidance makes it inadequate for an agent to use this tool effectively in the complex workflow environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'consistent parameters' and 'strict naming conventions' but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage, relationships between serviceName and operation, or example values. 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 states the tool 'executes database and business logic operations through MCP services' which provides a general purpose, but it's vague about the specific action and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'execute_transition' or 'workflow_execution_operations'. It mentions 'core workflow operations service' but doesn't clearly differentiate its role from other workflow-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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'execute_transition', 'bootstrap_workflow', and 'workflow_execution_operations', the description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. It mentions 'uses consistent parameters and follows strict naming conventions' but this doesn't help an agent choose between tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions that the tool 'returns execution status with essential details for next steps,' this is insufficient for a mutation tool. It doesn't disclose what 'executes' entails (e.g., whether it's irreversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or involves rate limits), leaving critical behavioral traits undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at one sentence that states the action and return value. It's front-loaded with the core action ('executes role transition') and wastes no words. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavior, but it's efficient given its 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 the complexity of a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't adequately explain what 'role transition' means, what 'executes' entails behaviorally, or what the return 'execution status' and 'essential details' include. For a tool that likely changes system state, this leaves significant gaps in 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how roleId, taskId, and transitionId interact) or provide usage examples, so it meets the baseline but doesn't add value.
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 'executes role transition' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what 'role transition' actually means in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'validate_transition' or 'get_role_transitions', leaving the specific purpose unclear beyond the general action.
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, appropriate contexts, or when other tools like 'validate_transition' or 'report_step_completion' might be more suitable. The agent receives no usage direction beyond the basic action described.
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' which suggests a read operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's safe (e.g., read-only), if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format might be. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, though it could benefit from more detail to improve clarity and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving role progression with multiple sibling tools), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'focused next step information' includes, how it differs from similar tools, or what the agent can expect in return, leaving significant gaps for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'id' as 'Task ID for context' and 'roleId' as 'Role ID for next step query.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how these parameters interact or their impact on results. 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 states the tool 'Get focused next step information for role progression,' which provides a general purpose (retrieving next step data) but lacks specificity about what 'focused next step information' entails or how it differs from siblings like 'get_step_guidance' or 'get_step_progress.' It's vague in distinguishing the exact resource or 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_step_guidance' or 'get_role_transitions.' The description implies usage for role progression but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent without clear direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions reporting results and getting guidance, but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it modifies state, what happens if reporting fails, or what format the guidance takes. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 7 words, efficiently stating the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the primary action ('report') and outcome ('get next step guidance'). While perhaps too brief given the tool's complexity, every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, workflow execution context), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'next step guidance' looks like, how results affect workflow state, or the relationship between executionId and taskId. For a reporting tool in a workflow system with many sibling tools, more context about its role and behavior 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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'step completion results' which aligns with the 'stepId' and 'result' parameters, but provides no additional context about parameter relationships or usage patterns. 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 as 'Report step completion results and get next step guidance', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('report') and resource ('step completion results'), but doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_step_guidance' or 'get_next_available_step'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity 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 siblings like 'get_step_guidance', 'get_next_available_step', and 'execute_transition', there's no indication of when this reporting tool is appropriate versus those guidance/execution tools. The description simply states what it does without context about usage scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'initializes' a workflow, implying a creation/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose whether this is idempotent, what permissions are required, what happens on failure, or what the expected output looks like. The mention of 'git setup' and 'task creation' adds some context but lacks operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by separating the initialization action from the procedural details ('starting from...'), and 'boomerang role' is unexplained jargon that reduces clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that initializes workflows with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what 'initializes' entails operationally, what 'boomerang role' means, how errors are handled, or what the agent should expect after invocation. The context signals indicate moderate complexity (3 parameters, enums), but the description doesn't adequately address this.
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%, providing clear documentation for all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how 'projectPath' relates to 'git setup' or clarify the implications of 'executionMode' choices. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Initializes a new workflow execution') and specifies the starting role ('boomerang role'), which distinguishes it from tools like 'init_rules' or 'execute_transition'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'workflow_execution_operations' or explain what 'boomerang role' entails beyond being the starting point.
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 mentions 'starting from git setup through task creation and delegation', which implies a specific context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'init_rules' or 'execute_transition'. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'retrieves' which implies a read operation, but does not cover critical aspects like whether this is idempotent, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure, possible status values). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its function, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of report status retrieval, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, error conditions, and usage context, which are essential for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in a workflow environment with 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'reportId' clearly documented as a unique identifier. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to obtain the ID, but the schema adequately covers the parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and the target ('current status and results of a report generation request'), which is specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_workflow_report' or 'get_step_progress', which might involve similar report-related operations, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'generate_workflow_report' for initiating reports or other status-checking tools. It implies usage for checking report status but offers no explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer based on 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 for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (recommendations, scores, basic requirements) but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, has rate limits, or how results are structured/formatted. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that appears to query workflow state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes key return details. Every word serves a purpose with zero wasted text, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters, what 'transition context' means, how recommendations/scores are determined, or the format/structure of returned data. This leaves too many unknowns for effective agent 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 all three parameters with descriptions and an enum for 'fromRoleName'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('gets') and resource ('available role transitions'), including what information is returned (recommendations, scores, basic requirements). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_next_available_step' or 'get_transition_history', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_next_available_step' or 'get_transition_history'. It mentions 'workflow progression' context but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what the tool provides ('guidance... including commands and validation checklist'), it doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what format the guidance comes in, or any rate limits. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality, with no wasted words 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 guidance-providing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the guidance comes in, whether it's actionable steps or just information, or how the output should be interpreted. Given the complexity implied by the parameter set and lack of structured output information, 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 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions (e.g., explaining relationships between executionId and taskId). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Provides focused guidance for executing the current workflow step, including commands and validation checklist.' It specifies the verb ('provides guidance') and resource ('current workflow step'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_workflow_guidance' or 'get_next_available_step'.
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_workflow_guidance' and 'get_next_available_step', there's no indication of how this tool differs in context or when it should be preferred over similar 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 states 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe, requires permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of task progress tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'focused step progress summary' means, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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 ('id' and 'roleId') with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'focused step progress summary' entails in relation to parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('focused step progress summary for a task'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_step_guidance' or 'get_next_available_step', which might also relate to task steps, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Initialize' but doesn't clarify if this is a one-time setup, what happens to existing rules, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the expected outcome is (e.g., success confirmation or error handling). This leaves critical behavioral traits undefined for a tool that likely modifies system state.
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 target. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every element ('Initialize', 'Anubis workflow rules', 'specified AI agent') contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely involves system configuration (implied by 'Initialize'), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or dependencies with siblings like 'bootstrap_workflow'. For a tool with potential state changes and multiple related operations, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters, including an enum for 'agentName' and a default for 'projectRoot'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by specifying 'AI agent to deploy rules for' in the description text, but it doesn't provide additional context like agent capabilities or project root implications. Baseline 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Initialize') and the resource ('Anubis workflow rules'), specifying the target ('to specified AI agent'). It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like 'bootstrap_workflow' or 'execute_transition' by focusing on rule initialization rather than execution or setup. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'get_workflow_guidance', which might involve rules 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 mentions the target AI agents but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing (e.g., after bootstrapping), or exclusions. Siblings like 'bootstrap_workflow' or 'execute_transition' suggest related operations, but no explicit comparison or usage context is given, leaving the agent to infer 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool provides 'pass/fail status with actionable feedback', which hints at read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if this is a safe operation, whether it requires specific permissions, or if it has side effects like logging. For a validation 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's function and output. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from output details.
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 implied by validating role transitions and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid transition, the format of the feedback, or error handling. For a tool with three required parameters and no structured output, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., how roleId, taskId, and transitionId interrelate). This meets the baseline score of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('validates') and resource ('role transition requirements'), and specifies the output ('pass/fail status with actionable feedback'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this validation tool from sibling tools like 'get_role_transitions' or 'execute_transition', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to transitions and workflows (e.g., 'execute_transition', 'get_role_transitions'), there's no indication of prerequisites, timing, or comparative use cases. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'strongly-typed operations' and 'validated parameters,' it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether operations are read-only or mutative, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'managing execution state' entails in practice. For a tool with 12 parameters and complex nested objects, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured in two sentences that cover purpose and key characteristics. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool, though the second sentence could be more specific about what 'handles execution context and progress tracking' means in practice. There's no wasted verbiage, and the information is front-loaded with the core 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 highly complex tool with 12 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the relationship between different operations, what 'managing workflow execution state' entails, how operations differ, or what the tool returns. With 15 sibling tools on the server, the lack of differentiation and behavioral context makes this description incomplete for effective tool selection and 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 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'validated parameters' and 'strongly-typed operations' but provides no additional semantic context about parameter relationships, dependencies, or usage patterns. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't compensate for the tool's complexity.
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 'manages workflow execution state through strongly-typed operations' and lists specific operations (creating, querying, updating, completing). It specifies the resource ('workflow executions') and mentions context and progress tracking. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'execute_transition' or 'report_step_completion' that also handle workflow execution aspects.
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 15 sibling tools on the server, many related to workflow execution (like execute_transition, report_step_completion, get_step_progress), there's no indication of which scenarios call for this comprehensive operation-based approach versus more specific sibling tools. The description mentions 'validated parameters' but doesn't provide 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 full burden. It mentions 'retrieves' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. The inclusion of 'timeline overview and basic statistics' adds some context, but key operational details are missing for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieves transition history') and adds clarifying details ('with timeline overview and basic statistics for task context'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and scope but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and output details. For a read operation with no annotations, it should ideally include more about return values or error handling to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'taskId' documented as 'Task ID for transition history.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('transition history'), specifying it includes 'timeline overview and basic statistics for task context.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_role_transitions' or 'get_step_progress' by focusing on historical data with statistical insights. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 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 minimal guidance, only implying usage for 'task context' without specifying when to choose this over alternatives like 'get_role_transitions' or 'get_step_progress.' No explicit when/when-not rules or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer based on 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'generates' (implying a write/creation operation) and 'real-time data tracking' (suggesting dynamic updates), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or output behavior. The input schema notes performance improvements (e.g., removed PDF formats), but the description doesn't expand on this, leaving gaps in transparency for a complex tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to grasp quickly. However, it could be slightly more structured by breaking down key features or use cases, but overall, it's appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with siblings. The input schema provides extensive parameter info, but without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to cover behavioral aspects, such as what 'generates' entails in practice.
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 9 parameters thoroughly (e.g., 'reportType' with detailed examples). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.
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: 'Generates interactive workflow reports and analytics dashboards with rich visualizations and real-time data tracking.' It specifies the verb ('generates') and resource ('workflow reports and analytics dashboards') with additional details about features. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_report_status' or 'workflow_execution_operations', which could provide related functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage through terms like 'interactive' and 'real-time data tracking,' suggesting it's for analytical purposes. The input schema includes extensive examples for different report types (e.g., 'Daily standup: "interactive-dashboard"'), which offer context. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_report_status' or other siblings, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns ('exact structure needed for parameters') and its purpose, but doesn't mention potential limitations, error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description adds basic context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured in two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second explains the utility and relationship to another tool. There's no wasted text, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description provides adequate context. It explains the tool's purpose and relationship to other operations, though it could benefit from more detail about the schema format returned or potential use cases beyond just preparing for 'execute_mcp_operation'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by explaining that the schema is 'for a specific MCP service and operation' and that it's 'useful for understanding what parameters are required and optional', but doesn't provide additional parameter details beyond what the schema already specifies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('parameter schema definition for a specific MCP service and operation'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by explaining it returns schema information needed for 'execute_mcp_operation', making its role in the toolset explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('useful for understanding what parameters are required and optional for any service operation') and mentions its relationship to 'execute_mcp_operation'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the 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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Hive-Academy/Anubis-MCP'

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