ICP Control Plane MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.2
Disambiguation3/5
Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as icp_install_code, icp_upgrade_canister, and icp_deploy, or icp_canister_info and icp_get_canister_status. However, descriptions generally clarify the intended use, and each tool targets a specific scenario.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is mixed: some tools use the icp_ prefix with verb_noun order (icp_create_canister), while others omit the prefix (get_principal_id) or use noun_verb order (icp_canister_info). This inconsistency makes the set harder to navigate.
Tool Count2/5
With 36 tools, the set exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. Although the broad scope of ICP control justifies some variety, several tools are advisory or could be consolidated (e.g., guides, preflight checks, asset WASM installation).
Completeness3/5
The set covers major workflows: auth, cycles management, canister lifecycle, building, deploying, frontend, and tokens. However, obvious gaps remain, such as listing canisters, managing controller settings, or updating canister metadata, which are typical for a control plane.
Average 3.6/5 across 36 of 36 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
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 is failing
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?
With no annotations, the description must clearly state the tool's behavior. It fails to disclose whether the tool modifies state, creates a token, returns documentation, or requires authentication. The description even conflicts with the tool name, creating uncertainty about its side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, which is concise, but it is so vague and contradictory that it fails the front-loading test. It lacks a clear verb and resource, making it under-specified rather than appropriately sized.
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?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's operation, return value, or side effects. The one-sentence description is inadequate for an agent to correctly use the 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal context by mentioning ICRC-1 and ERC-20 analogy, but does not clarify parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the description neither improves nor harms parameter understanding.
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 says 'Get information about creating an ICRC-1 fungible token,' which conflicts with the tool name 'icp_create_icrc1_token' implying actual creation. The verb 'get information' is vague and does not clarify whether this tool creates a token or provides guidance. No differentiation from sibling tools is offered.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or context for use. The only hint is 'similar to ERC-20,' which does not help an agent decide when to invoke it.
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. It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get' but does not explicitly disclose safety, authentication needs, side effects, or what the response contains beyond 'URLs'. This lacks necessary 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 exceptionally concise—one short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, though the vague 'useful information' weakens the content. Still, no words are wasted, earning a high score 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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify return values. It mentions 'URLs' but not other included data, leaving significant ambiguity about what 'useful information' entails. For a simple tool this is still incomplete, as agents cannot predict the full response shape.
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 already documents the single parameter canister_id as 'The canister Principal ID' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that it operates on a canister, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra 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 'Get useful information about a canister including its URLs' specifies a verb and resource but is vague about what information is provided. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like icp_get_canister_status or get_canister_interface, so it falls short of a specific, differentiating purpose.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without mentioning suitable contexts, 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, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It only states that it creates dfx.json and folder structure, but does not mention behavior around existing files, permissions, reversibility, or other side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short, front-loaded sentences. Every word earns its place, efficiently conveying the core action and what gets created.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks important context. It doesn't explain when to use this tool instead of sibling tools, what 'customizable configuration' entails, or how the complex 'canisters' parameter behaves. This leaves an agent uncertain about side effects and expected outcomes.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds the phrase 'customizable configuration', but this is vague and doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already details for each parameter.
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 'Initialize' and the resource 'dfx project', and explains it creates dfx.json and folder structure. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like icp_create_project, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for new projects, but lacks explicit exclusions or mention of sibling tools that perform related tasks.
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 the full burden. It discloses the current exchange rate and canister creation, but omits key behaviors such as irreversibility, what happens to the new canister, fees, prerequisites (e.g., login/balance), or any failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no fluff or redundant information. It earns its place 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?
The tool has significant side effects (creating a canister) and no output schema. The description fails to mention prerequisites, what the user gets back (e.g., canister ID, cycles amount), or any implications of the conversion, leaving a clear gap for such a mutation-like 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?
Input schema coverage is 100% and already provides useful descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so it defaults to the baseline 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 ('Convert ICP to cycles') and the mechanism ('by creating a new canister'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like icp_cycles_balance or icp_top_up_canister. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The phrase 'by creating a new canister' implies it is for new canisters, but there is no clear when/when-not or comparison with tools like icp_top_up_canister.
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 only states that it checks authentication status, but does not mention whether it is read-only, requires authentication, makes network calls, or what happens when unauthenticated. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary repetition.
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?
The description is too minimal for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain what the check returns (e.g., boolean, principal, expiration time), nor does it provide any context about the authentication model. A simple tool might be adequately described with a bit more detail about the result format or typical use case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage (vacuously). Since there are no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline 4 for 0-parameter tools applies.
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 (check) and the resource (authentication status), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like icp_login and icp_logout by focusing on status rather than state changes. However, it lacks detail on what exactly constitutes 'authentication status' (e.g., logged-in state, principal), which is a minor gap.
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_principal_id or checking specific session details. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios. The usage is only implied by the tool name and description.
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?
The term 'guidance' implies an informational, read-only interaction without side effects, but the description does not disclose what the guidance includes, whether it's a static document, or any limitations. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but remains thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and topic. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition.
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, output schema, and parameter schema, the description should do more heavy lifting. 'Guidance on cycles management' is vague about what content will be returned and how the agent should use it, making it insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.
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 zero parameters, so the schema provides no information. According to the rubric, a tool with no parameters receives a baseline score of 4; the description correctly does not introduce any parameter-related expectations.
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 uses a clear verb+resource pattern ('Get guidance on cycles management'), identifying the tool's purpose as providing instructional content about cycle management. It distinguishes from sibling tools like icp_cycles_balance (balance check) and icp_to_cycles (conversion), but does not specify the scope or format of the guidance.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is provided about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the topic.
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 responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states what the tool does without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether existing files are overwritten), prerequisites, or any destructive potential. There is no additional context beyond the basic action.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the main verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could include additional guidance without becoming verbose. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations or output schema, so the description must compensate. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., existing asset canister), the effect on existing assets, or what is returned. This makes the description incomplete for an agent deciding how and when to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters, each with a clear description. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema. As a result, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description "Deploy static frontend files to an asset canister" uses a specific verb ('deploy') and clearly identifies the resource ('static frontend files' to 'asset canister'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'icp_deploy' by specifying static frontend files and the asset canister target.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies its use case via the tool name and action, but does not state exclusions or mention that 'icp_deploy' is for backend canister deployment. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.
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 only states the actions without disclosing that 'delete' is destructive, that stopping a canister makes it unavailable, or any permission/reversibility details. The agent has no warning about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that names the tool's resource and actions without wasted words. It is concise and easy to skim, though slightly more detail could have been included without harming 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 that this tool has a destructive action (delete), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It fails to explain the consequences of each action, any prerequisites or side effects, making it inadequate for an AI agent to safely use the 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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides via the action enum and canister_id description. It does not compensate or enhance the parameter semantics.
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 identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Manage') and resource ('canister state'), and lists the specific actions (start, stop, delete). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like icp_get_canister_status or icp_upgrade_canister, though 'manage' is slightly generic.
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 based on the action list: if you need to start, stop, or delete a canister, this is the tool. However, it provides no explicit context on when to use it vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, and no warnings about when certain actions are appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core action and the dfx requirement, but fails to mention side effects like generating build artifacts, overwriting existing files, or whether it affects the canister state. This is a significant gap for a build 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 extremely concise, using only two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word contributes meaning 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?
The description lacks key behavioral context: it doesn't specify the output location, whether it builds all canisters or only the specified one, or what the tool returns. With no output schema, this leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and expected outcomes.
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 already comprehensively describes both parameters (project_path and canister_name) with 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 action (compile), the input (Motoko canister project), the output (WASM), and the implementation (dfx). This specific verb+resource+output structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like icp_build_rust_canister.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for Motoko projects but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as icp_build_rust_canister. It states the prerequisite of dfx being installed, but no exclusionary conditions or explicit alternative guidance.
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 only states the tool creates a project; it does not disclose side effects such as filesystem changes, overwriting behavior, prerequisites, or whether it invokes dfx commands. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap, similar to the 'update_drive' calibration example.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. Every word contributes meaning: 'new frontend SPA project' and 'deployment to an asset canister' are all valuable context. No structural issues.
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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and results. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether project files are created locally, or how the project relates to existing canisters. While it mentions the target (asset canister), the overall context is insufficient for a mutation tool without further guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the two parameters (base_path and project_name), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as how project_name affects the scaffolded project or the valid format for base_path. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'frontend SPA project' and clarifies the purpose 'for deployment to an asset canister.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like icp_create_canister and icp_deploy_frontend, which handle different stages. The scope is precise and unambiguous.
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 when to use this tool (when scaffolding a frontend SPA for an asset canister) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It does not name sibling tools like icp_create_project or icp_deploy_frontend, leaving some room for ambiguity, but the phrase 'frontend SPA' offers sufficient context for an agent to infer the intended use case.
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 only states the action without disclosing side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or potential failure conditions. For a mutating operation, this is a significant transparency 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. All information presented is relevant and immediately actionable.
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?
The tool is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema. The description is too sparse to convey the full behavioral context, such as what happens on success, whether the operation is reversible, or any prerequisites. The schema covers parameters but not runtime behavior, leaving the agent underinformed.
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 clearly described. The tool description adds the directional context ('from Cycles Ledger to a canister') but doesn't provide additional format, units, or constraints beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Withdraw cycles') on a specific resource ('Cycles Ledger') directed to a canister. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like icp_cycles_balance (balance check) and icp_top_up_canister (likely a different funding operation).
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 usage context is implied: use this when you want to withdraw cycles from the Cycles Ledger to a canister. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like icp_top_up_canister or icp_transfer. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.
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 auto-detection but does not explain important behaviors such as whether it creates a new canister if no canister_id is provided, whether it overwrites existing code, or how the mode parameter affects the deployment. The schema partially fills this gap with a note about canister_id, but the description itself lacks critical side-effect and prerequisite information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of only two short sentences. The primary action 'Build and deploy a canister' is front-loaded, and the auto-detection detail is a separate, clearly structured addition. There is no redundant information or filler, making it an efficient and well-structured summary.
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 the schema covering parameter descriptions, the tool is a complex build-and-deploy operation with multiple modes and potential side effects. The description does not explain the deployment pipeline, prerequisites (e.g., authentication, network), or how it relates to sibling tools like icp_install_code or icp_deploy_frontend. No output schema means the description should provide more context on what to expect, which it fails to do.
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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (project_path, mode, canister_id), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents the necessary semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the description neither enhances nor detracts from what the schema provides.
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 function: 'Build and deploy a canister.' It also specifies auto-detection of Rust or Motoko projects, which distinguishes it from sibling build-only tools like icp_build_rust_canister and icp_build_motoko_canister. The verb 'deploy' combined with the resource 'canister' makes the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for any Rust or Motoko project by stating auto-detection, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as icp_install_code or icp_upgrade_canister. There is no mention of exclusions or specific scenarios where a separate build or deploy tool would be preferred. This is an implied usage with no clear guidance on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description lists what information is returned, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential errors, permission requirements, or side effects. It adds some context but is not rich.
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, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose and includes relevant examples. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.
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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly sufficient. It identifies the key output elements, though it could mention that the operation is read-only to 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?
The schema already provides full coverage of the single parameter with a clear description ('The target canister Principal'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema states.
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 'status of a canister', with specific details on what status includes (cycles balance, memory usage, settings). It is specific enough to distinguish from many siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like icp_canister_info.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or reference sibling tools. For a tool with many nearby siblings (e.g., icp_canister_info, icp_cycles_balance), this is a clear 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the local filesystem source, but does not disclose whether reinstall/upgrade modes are destructive, what happens to existing code, or any authorization requirements. Given the 'mode' parameter includes reinstall/upgrade, this is a significant transparency 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 two concise sentences that convey the core purpose and key differentiator without redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or behavioral differences between install/reinstall/upgrade modes. With overlapping siblings like icp_upgrade_canister and icp_deploy, this lack of context is insufficient for a potentially destructive 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The description adds that it reads WASM locally, but wasm_path already indicates a path to the .wasm file, so the added value is marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('installs or upgrades') and the resource ('WASM code in a canister'), and adds a key differentiator by noting it reads from the local filesystem. This distinguishes it from siblings like icp_install_asset_wasm or icp_deploy.
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 ('reads from local filesystem') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over icp_upgrade_canister or icp_deploy, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. The local-filesystem hint provides some guidance, but it is not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, mentions auth requirements, or discloses behavior around errors or pagination. This lack of transparency is a notable 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain the return format or any prerequisites/permissions, which would be useful given the lack of an output schema and annotations.
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% with the canister_id parameter already described as 'The asset canister Principal ID'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('assets in an asset canister'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which directly target asset listing.
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 when listing assets in a canister, but provides no explicit context for when to use this vs alternatives like call_canister or icp_get_canister_status. No exclusions or alternative references are given.
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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While it explains the conversion mechanism, it does not mention that ICP is spent, whether login is required, or any irreversible side effects. This is a potential gap for an agent deciding whether to call this 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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with fully documented parameters, but as a financial operation it lacks details on prerequisites, side effects, or expected outcomes. Still, the core action is adequately conveyed.
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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (canister_id and amount_icp) at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but also doesn't need to given schema completeness.
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 function: adding cycles to an existing canister via ICP conversion through CMC. It uses a specific verb (Add cycles), identifies the resource (existing canister), and distinguishes from siblings like icp_to_cycles by specifying the target canister.
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 the use case (topping up an existing canister) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like icp_to_cycles or icp_cycles_withdraw. It would benefit from saying when to use this over other cycle-related 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 must fully disclose behavior. It fails to mention that update calls can cause side effects, consume cycles, or require authentication. It also doesn't explain consequences of incorrect type specification or error handling, which is critical for a tool that can invoke arbitrary methods.
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 that immediately convey purpose and the key concept of Candid type strings. No filler or unnecessary repetition.
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 ability to call any method, it needs to explain the distinction between query and update calls, potential side effects, and how to format arguments/return types. The description lacks these details, and with no output schema, the agent is left without guidance on response handling or error scenarios.
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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds the key insight that argument and return types are specified using Candid type strings, which clarifies the purpose of arg_types and ret_types. However, it does not elaborate on how to structure args or handle complex types, so it provides only marginal added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Call' and resource 'any public method on an ICP canister', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific canister operations. The scope is well-defined and immediately understandable.
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: this is for calling any public method on a canister, which implies a general-purpose tool. It does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives, but the intended use is evident from the phrasing.
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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the tool modifies dfx.json, what validation happens (e.g., name conflicts), or whether permissions are required. The one-sentence description only restates the operation without revealing side effects or prerequisites beyond 'existing project'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that conveys the essential purpose without redundancy or extraneous details. It is front-loaded 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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and five parameters, the description is too sparse to be contextually complete. It does not explain how canister_type relates to the required or optional parameters (main vs. source), nor does it cover prerequisites or the side effect on the dfx.json file. A more complete description would at least mention that the tool edits the project configuration.
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 five parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema—it only introduces the overall action. Per the rubric, this merits a baseline 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a new canister') with a clear target ('existing dfx.json project'). This distinguishes it from siblings like icp_create_project or icp_create_canister by emphasizing the 'existing project' context, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 phrase 'existing dfx.json project' clearly implies the tool is used when a project already exists, distinguishing it from project-creation tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternatives guidance.
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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, authentication needs, or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence, front-loaded with the action.
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 zero-parameter simplicity and lack of output schema, the description minimally covers the tool's purpose, though it could mention the return value.
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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is maximal. The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no misleading information.
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 'Check' and names the resource 'your cycles balance on the Cycles Ledger', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like icp_check_balance and icp_token_balance.
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 usage guidance is provided; the description doesn't mention when to use this tool over alternatives or any 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the initiation and the returned URL, but omits side effects like the auto_open parameter potentially launching a browser (default true) and the fact that login likely changes authentication state. These missing details could mislead an agent about the tool's operational impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately state the action and the return value. There is no redundant information, and it effectively front-loads the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main behavior and return value. The only notable gap is the absence of a mention of the auto_open side effect, but this is captured in the schema. Overall, the tool is well-described given its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter auto_open, which includes an explanation ('Automatically open the browser'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already fully documents the parameter, 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.
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: 'Initiates the wallet login flow' and specifies the return of a URL for authentication via Internet Identity or NFID. It distinguishes itself from siblings like icp_auth_status (which checks status) and get_principal_id (which retrieves a principal).
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: when a login flow is needed, this tool should be invoked. It does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives such as icp_auth_status for checking existing login state, but the context of 'initiates the login flow' makes the primary use case clear.
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 must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions language support and project type without describing side effects, prerequisites, or potential overwrites. There is no indication of what files are generated, whether existing folders are overwritten, or if external tools like dfx are required. This is a significant gap for a scaffolding tool that implicitly modifies the filesystem.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Create a new ICP canister project') and then efficiently convey the key decisions. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and there is no repetition or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential decision points but omits details about the creation process's outcomes, such as the directory structure or next steps after creation. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps regarding what the user gets after execution, especially given that sibling tools handle subsequent steps like deploying or adding canisters.
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 already covers all parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the trade-offs between languages (Rust for systems programming vs Motoko for easier syntax) and project types (frontend for HTTP-serving vs backend for stateful API), which helps the agent make more informed choices beyond the raw enum values.
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 creates a new ICP canister project with the verb 'Create' and resource 'ICP canister project'. It goes beyond a tautology by specifying supported languages (Rust, Motoko) and project types (frontend/backend), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like icp_create_canister that focus on individual canisters rather than entire projects.
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 implicit usage context by explaining when to choose 'frontend' (HTTP-serving) vs 'backend' (stateful API), which guides parameter selection. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives such as icp_init_dfx_project or icp_create_frontend, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. This makes the guidance more about parameter semantics than tool selection, but the overall use case is reasonably inferred.
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 that the tool retrieves a 'guide,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm safety, side effects, or what the returned guide contains. This lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about 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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key term 'guide' and avoids unnecessary details, earning full marks for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal but sufficient for a simple, parameter-less tool. It tells the agent that this is a guide on safe deployment practices, but it does not elaborate on the guide's content, format, or how it differs from other informational tools. Given the lack of an output schema, a bit more detail about what the guide includes would improve completeness.
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 zero parameters, and the schema is empty. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter information since there are none to document.
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: to get a comprehensive guide on safe deployment practices for ICP canisters. The verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'guide' on 'safe deployment practices' distinguish it from sibling tools like icp_deploy or icp_preflight_check, which perform actions rather than provide information.
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 usage is implied: an agent would use this tool when seeking guidance on safe deployment practices. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Given the many deployment-related siblings, clearer guidance would be beneficial.
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 only states 'install' without any side effects, permission requirements, or whether the WASM is downloaded automatically (though the param description does mention downloading). This leaves the agent unaware of what happens when the tool is invoked.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately provides an important prerequisite, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives a clear purpose and prerequisite, and the schema documents both parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks behavioral details like return behavior or side effects, making it only moderately complete for a straightforward setup step.
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 well-described in the schema ('Path to asset canister WASM (downloads official if not provided)' and 'Target canister Principal ID'). The description adds no additional 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool installs the certified asset canister WASM, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes this tool from general code installation (like icp_install_code) and ties it to the frontend deployment workflow with 'Required before deploying frontend files.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says this is required before deploying frontend files, providing clear contextual guidance on when to use it. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the prerequisite relationship is sufficient to orient the agent in a deployment workflow.
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning return format, auth requirements, error conditions, or read-only nature. This is a significant gap for an unannotated 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, concise sentence that clearly states the purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, leaving return value expectations undocumented. While the action is simple, the lack of return format or balance representation (e.g., decimals) makes this minimally complete but not comprehensive.
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 each parameter having a description. The tool description adds the context that the token is ICRC-1, but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: checking the balance of an ICRC-1 token for a given account. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('ICRC-1 token'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like icp_check_balance which likely handles ICP.
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 this tool is for ICRC-1 token balances, which differentiates it from similar tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the context of 'ICRC-1 token' provides clear situational guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a fixed fee of 0.0001 ICP, which is a useful behavioral detail for a transfer operation. However, it does not mention that the transfer is irreversible, that authentication is required, or how the fee affects the transaction (e.g., whether the fee is deducted from the amount or added to the sender's cost).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, each adding value: the transfer operation and the fee. There is no redundant or irrelevant content, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple transfer tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose and fee, but leaves gaps: it does not clarify how the fee is applied (net vs gross amount) or that transfers are permanent and require proper authorization. These are important details for a financial operation, so the description is adequate but not 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?
All three parameters have detailed descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'Destination account ID (hex string, 64 characters)' and 'Amount in ICP (e.g., 1.5 for 1.5 ICP)'), providing 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the overall fee, so it does not exceed the baseline for this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Transfer' with resource 'ICP' and target 'another account', making it distinct from sibling tools like balance checks or canister operations. The inclusion of the fee adds specificity and reinforces the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for transferring ICP between accounts, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like icp_to_cycles or icp_check_balance. The fee is mentioned, providing some context, but there are no explicit when-not-to-use conditions 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'check' implying a read operation, but does not mention whether login is required, what 'current account' means, or the return format. This is a significant gap for a zero-annotation 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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless read operation, the description is mostly complete. However, it could clarify that this checks the native ICP token rather than a custom token (especially given the sibling icp_token_balance). Overall, adequate for its simplicity.
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 zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to explain beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('ICP balance') with clear scope ('current account'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like icp_token_balance and icp_cycles_balance.
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?
Usage context is implied by the tool name and sibling set, but no explicit guidance is given on when to choose this over icp_token_balance or whether it requires prior authentication. It lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'check' implies a read-only operation, but this is not explicitly stated, nor are return values or authentication requirements disclosed. The phrase 'Essential before any management operation' adds context about its role but not about its behavior beyond the name.
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 only two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second adds essential usage context. There is no redundant information, 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?
The tool has a single parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose and usage context but does not explain the return value or any prerequisites (e.g., being logged in). Given the low complexity, it is mostly adequate but leaves room for improvement in describing expected outcomes.
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 already describes the only parameter, canister_id, as 'The canister ID to check' with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning for the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 function: 'Check if you are a controller of a canister.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the additional context 'Essential before any management operation' further clarifies its role and distinguishes it from sibling tools like icp_manage_canister or icp_get_canister_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Essential before any management operation.' This provides a clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the action (compile to WASM) and prerequisites, but omits side effects like generated build artifacts or potential failure modes. This is adequate but leaves gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a necessary prerequisite. Every word earns its place; no waste.
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 build tool with fully described parameters, the description covers the essential prerequisites and output format. It could mention the sibling Motoko alternative or where artifacts are written, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most contexts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, but that is acceptable given the schema coverage. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Compile' with a clear resource ('Rust canister project') and target artifact ('WASM'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool icp_build_motoko_canister by language.
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?
It provides clear context for when to use the tool: compiling Rust canister projects. It also states the prerequisites (Rust and wasm32-unknown-unknown target), which is useful operational guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a record and its purpose, but does not disclose potential side effects such as whether it modifies the canister, requires specific permissions, or overwrites existing records. This is minimally adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and the second sentence adds rationale. There is no wasted wording, 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.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with four well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and use case. It could be more explicit about what the 'record' contains or how it is stored, but the combination of schema and description is sufficiently 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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific context beyond what the schema already provides, so no score above baseline is warranted.
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 ('Create') and resource ('release snapshot/record for a deployed canister'), and clearly states its purpose ('tracking deployments and enabling rollbacks'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy, upgrade, and install_code, which perform different actions.
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: it is for a canister that is already deployed, and is useful for tracking deployments and rollbacks. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the situation in which to use it is well implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It conveys a read-only 'Fetch' operation and implies a non-destructive nature, but does not disclose authentication requirements, error cases, or return format beyond 'Candid interface definition'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, with the action front-loaded and a succinct usage directive. No filler words; every phrase contributes to clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple fetch tool with no output schema, the description explains what it does and when to use it. It could be improved by hinting at the response format or any constraints (e.g., that known_type is optional), but the current level is sufficient for a straightforward discovery 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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters having descriptive details (e.g., known_type enum/default, canister_id as 'The canister Principal ID'). The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clear resource ('Candid interface definition for a canister'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling call_canister by framing itself as a discovery tool for methods before invocation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to discover available methods before using call_canister.' This names the alternative tool and the temporal relationship, making the decision boundary clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose an important behavioral trait: it uses provisional creation and is dev-mode only. This is meaningful context beyond the tool's name, though it doesn't cover other aspects like return values or error 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence adds critical constraints without any fluff. Every sentence 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?
Despite lacking annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the key dev-mode constraint. It doesn't explain return values or alternative tools, but for a simple creation tool with well-documented parameters, this is reasonably 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?
The input schema fully describes both parameters (cycles and controllers) with coverage at 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Creates a new empty canister' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like icp_install_code or icp_manage_canister. It also adds context about provisional creation, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 usage context by noting 'dev mode only' and 'requires cycles faucet on mainnet', which tells the agent when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates this is a validation/read-only operation ('Validates...') and specifies what is checked, which implies no destructive side effects. It does not describe error behavior or return format, but for a preflight check the described behavior is adequately transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and then compactly lists validation areas, making every word earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a preflight check tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: when to use it and what it validates. It does not disclose return values or failure behavior, but this is a relatively simple check tool; the provided detail is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds some contextual meaning—'existing code' maps to wasm_path, and 'deployment mode safety' maps to mode—but it does not provide explicit parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema offers, matching the baseline for full coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Run comprehensive preflight checks') tied to a clear resource ('before deploying to a canister'), and enumerates the exact validation scope (controller status, cycles, existing code, deployment mode safety). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like icp_controller_check or icp_deploy.
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 phrase 'before deploying to a canister' establishes clear usage context, and listing the checked dimensions implies it should precede icp_deploy or icp_install_code. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though 'preflight' makes the intended timing obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the account ID is for the current principal and that it's a hex string, but does not mention whether login is required, network calls, or side effects. For a simple zero-param getter, this is adequate but not rich.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned and why it's needed. It is complete for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the schema imposes no burden. The description adds meaning by specifying the return type (hex string) and scoping to the current principal, which would otherwise be unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool gets the Account ID (hex string) for the current principal. The addition 'This is needed to receive ICP' gives concrete context and differentiates it from sibling get_principal_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context for when to use (when receiving ICP) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Still, the use case is specific enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly mentions that the tool 'ALWAYS uses upgrade mode by default' and includes preflight checks, which conveys its safe default behavior. However, it does not mention the existence of dangerous flags like skip_preflight or force_reinstall (though the schema does), and the phrase 'only if you need reinstall' could be seen as hinting that reinstall is not this tool's purpose despite the schema allowing it. This is a minor 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Safely upgrade a canister') and immediately followed by the key default behavior and alternative tool. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
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 tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role, its safe-by-default nature, and its relationship to icp_install_code. It does not delve into failure modes or post-upgrade behavior, but that is not necessary for a basic selection decision. It could arguably mention that preflight checks are controlled by the skip_preflight parameter, but the schema already covers that.
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 explains all six parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information, maintaining the baseline score of 3. It does not explain how parameters like skip_preflight or force_reinstall interact with the tool's stated safe default.
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 function: 'Safely upgrade a canister with preflight checks.' It specifies the action (upgrade), the resource (canister), and a key differentiator (preflight checks, preserving state). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool icp_install_code by noting that the latter is for reinstall.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Use icp_install_code directly only if you need reinstall.' This directly addresses when to use an alternative. The emphasis on upgrade mode and preserving state also implies when this tool is preferred over a reinstall approach.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the anonymous sentinel value and the appropriate next action, which is key context. It implies a read-only, auth-dependent operation, though it doesn't detail error cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and no redundant wording. Every clause adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the return value's meaning and the conditional follow-up action. It is complete for its simplicity.
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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed given the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Returns the Principal ID of the authenticated agent' with a specific verb and resource. It also adds a unique detail (anonymous check) that distinguishes it from sibling tools like icp_auth_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context on when to use the result ('Check if the result is anonymous... call icp_login if needed'), giving a conditional alternative. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like icp_auth_status, but the guidance is specific and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the primary behavioral effect: session termination and reversion to anonymous identity. It does not disclose side effects like token invalidation, but the core behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the action verb 'Logs out' and immediately specifies the result.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully covers what the tool does and its outcome. It is complete for this scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters; the input schema is empty and schema coverage is vacuous at 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details.
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 'Logs out' and resource 'current session', with a clear outcome 'reverts to anonymous identity'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like icp_login and icp_auth_status.
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 for when to use it: to end the authenticated session and return to anonymous state. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the action is self-explanatory and appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
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:

[![icp-control-plane-mcp-dist MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Jesse-pink-lab/icp-control-plane-mcp-dist/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Jesse-pink-lab/icp-control-plane-mcp-dist)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![icp-control-plane-mcp-dist MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Jesse-pink-lab/icp-control-plane-mcp-dist/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Jesse-pink-lab/icp-control-plane-mcp-dist)

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/Jesse-pink-lab/icp-control-plane-mcp-dist'

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