Modal MCP Server

Tool Scores

• modal_logsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it specifies 'recent' logs, it fails to define the time window (last 5 minutes? 24 hours?), output format, streaming behavior, or rate limiting. It omits critical safety/behavioral context expected for a logging tool without 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 single-sentence description is highly efficient and front-loaded with the core action. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity contributes to underspecification rather than optimal information density.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Despite being a simple two-parameter tool, the description lacks necessary context given the absence of annotations and output schema. It does not describe the return value format, log structure, or explain the 'recent' temporal boundary, leaving significant gaps for an agent attempting to interpret results.

  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 for both parameters ('app_name' and 'lines'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional semantics, examples, or syntax guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

  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'), resource ('logs'), and scope ('recent' from a 'Modal app'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'modal_apps' or the render/voice-clone operations, though the resource type naturally distinguishes it.

  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 (e.g., when to poll logs vs. checking render status via 'modal_render_get'). No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• modal_renderA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses infrastructure (Chrome + FFmpeg, Supabase) and return type (public MP4 URL). Missing critical behavioral traits: whether operation is synchronous (blocks until video ready) or asynchronous (returns job ID), error handling, URL expiration, and what 'memory' persistence actually means.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two dense sentences. First covers entire pipeline (render → upload → save → return), second covers format constraints. Zero redundancy. Information-to-word ratio is excellent; every clause earns its place.

  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?

  Complex tool (7 params, nested objects, video pipeline) with no annotations or output schema. Description compensates by stating return value (MP4 URL). However, for a potentially long-running video render operation, failing to specify sync/async behavior or job lifecycle leaves critical gaps in context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema has 100% coverage, establishing baseline 3. Description adds concrete value by enumerating example format IDs (instagram_reel_v1, explainer_v1, etc.) beyond schema's generic 'Format ID' definition. 'Etc.' implies extensibility. Could add guidance on sections array structure but schema handles that adequately.

  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?

  Clear specific action (Render Remotion composition) and resource pipeline (Modal cloud → Supabase → memory). Distinguishes from siblings modal_render_get/list through action verbs implying creation vs retrieval. 'Save job to memory' is slightly ambiguous (RAM vs persistence). Would be perfect with explicit 'creates new render job' contrast.

  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?

  Lists valid format enums (instagram_ugc_v1, etc.) which guides input selection. Lacks explicit when-to-use vs siblings (e.g., 'use this to create new renders, use modal_render_get to check status'). No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., valid composition ID requirements).

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• modal_render_listA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds valuable context about data source ('Supabase memory') and compensates for missing output schema by listing return fields (status, URL, render time, label). Missing: definition of 'recent' time window, pagination behavior, or read-only safety confirmation.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence establishes operation and source; second sentence documents return values. No filler or redundant phrases.

  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?

  Adequately compensates for missing output schema by enumerating return fields. Parameters are simple and fully documented in schema. Minor gap: undefined time scope for 'recent' jobs.

  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 has 100% description coverage ('Max jobs to return', 'Filter by status'), establishing baseline 3. Description does not add syntax details, format constraints, or examples beyond what schema provides.

  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?

  Clear verb ('List') and resource ('Modal render jobs') with specific data source ('Supabase memory'). Distinguishes from siblings modal_render (likely create) and modal_render_get (likely specific retrieval) through 'List recent', but does not explicitly name alternatives.

  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?

  Implied usage through 'List recent' (browse history vs. specific lookup), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance contrasting it with modal_render_get or modal_render. No prerequisites or exclusions stated.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• modal_appsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses what data is returned (status, task count, creation date) but omits safety profile (read-only vs destructive), pagination behavior, or rate limiting concerns.

  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 of 12 words with zero waste. Front-loaded with the action verb 'List' and efficiently specifies both the resource and the specific attributes returned.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a zero-parameter tool without annotations or output schema, the description is nearly complete by specifying the return payload structure. Could be improved by noting pagination or scope limits, but adequate for complexity level.

  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?

  Input schema has zero parameters, warranting baseline score of 4 per scoring rules. Description provides context about the operation's output since the empty schema cannot.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Description states a specific verb (List) and resource (deployed Modal apps) and distinguishes from siblings like modal_logs and modal_render_list by specifying the exact entity type ('apps').

  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?

  Provides implied usage through specificity of returned fields (status, task count, creation date), suggesting it's for inventory/overview. However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance contrasting it with modal_logs or the render tools.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• modal_render_getA
  4/5.0
  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. It discloses return content ('URL and full metadata') which compensates for the missing output schema, but omits operational details like read-only safety, error cases (e.g., invalid job_id), or rate limits.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences with zero waste: first establishes the operation and identifier, second discloses the return payload. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a single-parameter lookup tool.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, flat structure) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the essential contract: what it fetches, how to identify it, and what data comes back. Minor gap regarding error handling or read-only status.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents that job_id is 'returned by modal_render'. The description references the parameter ('by job_id') but does not add semantic depth beyond the schema's existing documentation.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the exact resource ('Modal render job'), and scopes it to a single entity 'by job_id'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like modal_render_list (plural) and modal_render (likely creation).

  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?

  While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the keywords 'single' and 'by job_id' provide clear contextual guidance that this is for targeted retrieval of a known job, implicitly contrasting with modal_render_list for browsing and modal_render for creation.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• modal_voice_cloneA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses the output format ('Returns audio URL or base64') and default voice behavior. It does not mention rate limits, text constraints, or URL persistence, but covers the critical behavioral traits of the synthesis operation.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two concise sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the action verb, parenthetical clarifies default behavior, and second sentence discloses return format. Every word earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the lack of output schema, the description appropriately specifies the return values (URL or base64). It adequately covers the 3-parameter tool's behavior despite missing annotations. Slightly incomplete regarding error handling or text length constraints, but sufficient for the complexity level.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the description appropriately does not redundantly explain 'text', 'speed', or 'temperature'. It adds valuable semantic context that the voice is fixed to 'Isaiah' (not configurable via parameters), which explains why no voice parameter exists in the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Synthesize') with clear resource ('speech') and technology ('Modal F5-TTS voice clone'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings (modal_apps, modal_logs, modal_render) which handle infrastructure/management tasks rather than audio synthesis.

  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 mentions 'Isaiah voice by default,' implying expectations about output voice quality/style, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., text length limits). Usage is implied by the specific capability but not stated.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.