Threads MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, such as create_thread vs. delete_thread or get_ancestors vs. get_children, but there is some overlap between get_entity and more specific getters like get_thread or get_container, which could cause minor confusion. Overall, the descriptions help clarify boundaries, but a few tools like get_entity might be redundant with others.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as create_thread, delete_container, update_group, and list_progress. All tools use snake_case without deviation, making them predictable and easy to understand. This consistency aids in agent selection and reduces cognitive load.
Tool Count3/5
With 29 tools, the count is borderline high for a thread management server, potentially feeling heavy and overwhelming for agents. While the tools cover many operations, some could be consolidated (e.g., multiple getters), making the set slightly over-scoped. It's not extreme, but it approaches the upper limit of reasonable.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete CRUD and lifecycle coverage for threads, containers, groups, and progress notes, including creation, retrieval, updating, deletion, and organization (e.g., move_to_group, set_parent). No obvious gaps exist; agents can manage the entire hierarchy and workflow without dead ends, ensuring robust functionality.
Average 2.9/5 across 29 of 29 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a group' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, side effects (e.g., what happens to child entities), error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Delete a group') with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like permissions, side effects, error handling, or what happens upon success. For a delete operation with no structured safety hints, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage (the 'id' parameter is documented as 'Group ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, but with only one parameter that's fully documented, this is acceptable. A score of 4 reflects that the description doesn't detract from the schema's coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a group' clearly states the action (delete) and target resource (group), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'group' in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like delete_container or delete_thread, which perform similar deletion operations on different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., group must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete groups with children), or related tools like delete_container or delete_thread for deleting other resource types. The agent receives no usage context beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'lists threads with optional filtering'. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no filters are applied. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'threads' are in this context, what the return format looks like, or how filtering logic works (AND/OR). The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively despite the comprehensive schema.
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 8 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'optional filtering', which is already evident from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List threads with optional filtering' clearly states the verb ('list') and resource ('threads'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'search_threads' or 'get_thread'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about what kind of threads or system context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_threads' or 'get_thread'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a write operation ('Add') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether notes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though more context could improve completeness without sacrificing 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'adding a progress note' entails behaviorally, what the tool returns, or how it differs from siblings. More context is needed given the complexity implied by sibling tools like 'edit_progress' and 'delete_progress'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'threadId' and 'note' are required (matching schema), but doesn't explain context like note formatting or timestamp usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('progress note to a thread'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'edit_progress' or 'delete_progress', which would require specifying this is for creating new notes rather than modifying existing ones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., thread must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'edit_progress' for updates or 'list_progress' for viewing notes.
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 implies a mutation ('Archive') but doesn't specify if this is reversible, requires permissions, affects thread visibility, or has side effects like notifications. The optional cascading behavior is mentioned but lacks detail on what 'child threads' entail or system impacts.
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—a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function with an optional feature. There is no wasted wording, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with cascading options), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like reversibility, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer or handle incorrectly.
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 input schema fully documents parameters (id and cascade). The description adds minimal value by implying the cascade parameter's effect ('optionally with children'), but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Archive') and resource ('a thread'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from deletion tools like delete_thread by specifying archival rather than permanent removal. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_thread that might have archival options, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., thread must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot archive already archived threads), or comparisons to tools like delete_thread or update_thread. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'creates' a new container, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words and earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral context, error handling, return values, and usage guidelines relative to siblings. Given the complexity and lack of structured support, more information is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how parentId affects hierarchy). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('create') and resource ('container'), specifying its purpose for organizing threads. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_group' or 'create_thread' by focusing on containers specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_group' or 'update_container'. The description mentions organizing threads but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create' implying a write operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether creation is idempotent, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the key action and purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple creation tool with two parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or side effects, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool correctly in context with siblings like 'update_group' or 'delete_group'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters 'name' and 'description' are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format constraints or examples, but the baseline is 3 since the schema adequately covers parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new group'), specifying its purpose for 'cross-cutting organization'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_group' or 'delete_group' by focusing on creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'create_container' or 'create_thread'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_container' or 'create_thread', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The description implies usage for organizational purposes but lacks explicit context for selection among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address permissions needed, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the return value contains. It provides minimal behavioral 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'thread' represents in this system, how it differs from containers/groups, what 'tracking an activity stream' entails, or what happens after creation. The context is too minimal for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation entirely through the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('create a new thread') and purpose ('for tracking an activity stream'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_container' or 'create_group', which likely have overlapping creation functionality but for different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_container' or 'create_group', nor does it mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a container' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or recoverable, side effects (e.g., impact on child elements), or error conditions. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick scanning by an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling deletion tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what a 'container' is, how deletion behaves, or differentiate it from similar tools. For a mutation tool in a complex environment, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage (the 'id' parameter is documented as 'Container ID'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with only one parameter and high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The score is 4 because the description is concise and doesn't create confusion, though it doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a container' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (container), but it's vague about what a 'container' represents in this context and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling deletion tools like delete_group, delete_progress, or delete_thread. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like delete_group, delete_progress, and delete_thread available, there's no indication of what differentiates a 'container' from these other resources or when deletion of one versus another is appropriate. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'delete' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether there are confirmation prompts, or what happens to associated data. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'progress entry', what the deletion consequences are, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of deletion operations and lack of structured safety information, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (threadId and progressId) clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a progress entry' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (progress entry), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_container' or 'delete_thread' that also perform deletion operations on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when deletion is appropriate versus archiving or editing, or how this relates to sibling tools like 'edit_progress' or 'list_progress'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the deletion is 'permanent', which is crucial context, but doesn't address other important aspects like required permissions, whether deletion can be undone, error conditions, or what happens to related data. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the key action ('permanently delete'), making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context such as what 'permanently' entails operationally, any confirmation steps, error handling, or the tool's response format. This leaves too many unknowns for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('permanently delete') and the resource ('a thread'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_container' or 'delete_group', which perform similar deletion operations on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when deletion is appropriate compared to archiving (via 'archive_thread'), what prerequisites might exist, or any constraints on its use.
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 'edit' implies a mutation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., if the progress entry doesn't exist), or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('edit') and resource ('progress entry'), making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 3 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, error cases, or what the edit entails (e.g., partial vs. full updates). For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters (threadId, progressId, note) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or usage nuances). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('edit') and resource ('an existing progress entry'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_progress' (create) and 'delete_progress' (remove), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is specific but could be slightly more detailed about what 'edit' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing progress entry), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'update_thread' or 'list_progress'. Without this context, users must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves ancestors but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, potential errors (e.g., invalid entityId), output format, or if it includes the root entity. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all ancestors of an entity') and adds clarifying context ('path to root'). There is no wasted language, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of hierarchical data retrieval and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'ancestors' entails (e.g., ordered list, includes self), potential limitations, or error cases. For a tool in a set with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'entityId' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it's used to identify the starting entity. Since the schema fully describes the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'ancestors of an entity', specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_children' or 'get_subtree' by focusing on upward traversal. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'ancestors' means in this context (e.g., parent chain vs. lineage).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_full_tree' or 'get_subtree'. The description implies usage for retrieving upward paths but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without context, an agent might struggle to choose between similar hierarchical tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries hierarchical data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get immediate children'), making it efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of omitted details in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'children' means in this context (e.g., types of entities), how results are structured, or potential limitations. For a tool with one parameter but no structured output information, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'entityId' documented as 'Parent entity ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('immediate children of an entity'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_ancestors', 'get_full_tree', or 'get_subtree', which also retrieve entity relationships but with different scopes or directions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_ancestors' (for parent relationships), 'get_full_tree' (for all descendants), or 'get_subtree' (for deeper children), leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone without explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' a container, implying a read operation, but doesn't cover aspects like permissions needed, error handling (e.g., if ID/name is invalid), or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get a container') and specifies the key input ('by ID or name'). There is no wasted text, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of retrieving a specific resource, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., container data structure), error conditions, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'identifier' fully documented in the schema as 'Container ID or name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('container'), specifying it retrieves by 'ID or name'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_containers' (which lists multiple) and 'get_entity' (which is more generic), but doesn't explicitly differentiate them in the text, keeping it at a 4.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'get_container' over 'get_entity' or 'list_containers', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an existing container. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool retrieves entities but lacks details on permissions required, error handling (e.g., if the entity doesn't exist), response format, or any rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of retrieving entities in a system with multiple sibling tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how this tool differs from similar ones, what the return value includes, or any behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'identifier' documented as 'Entity ID or name'. The description adds minimal value by restating this as 'by ID or name' but does not clarify semantics like format differences between ID and name, or if both can be used interchangeably. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('any entity'), specifying it can be either a 'thread or container' and can be retrieved 'by ID or name'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_container' or 'get_thread', which appear to fetch specific entity types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_container' or 'get_thread', nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage scenarios. It merely states what the tool does without indicating appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's read-only or mutative, or what format the hierarchy tree is returned in. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of hierarchy operations and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'complete hierarchy tree' entails, how it differs from sibling tools, or what the return value looks like, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand its use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here, and baseline 4 is applied as per rules for zero parameters, indicating no need for compensation.
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 the complete hierarchy tree' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('complete hierarchy tree'), but it's vague about what constitutes the hierarchy tree and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_subtree' or 'get_ancestors'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope or content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_subtree' or 'get_ancestors'. The description implies it retrieves a full tree, but it doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't describe what 'Get' entails—whether it returns full group details, permissions required, error behavior for invalid identifiers, or response format. For a read operation without annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently specifies the lookup mechanism. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter structure, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (e.g., group object structure), error conditions, or how it fits within the broader toolset (e.g., relationship to 'create_group' or 'update_group'). For a basic read tool, more contextual information would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'identifier' documented as 'Group ID or name'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this—it doesn't clarify format examples, case sensitivity, or uniqueness constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides adequate parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a group'), specifying it retrieves a group by ID or name. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_groups' (which lists multiple groups) and 'get_ancestors' (which retrieves hierarchical data), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_entity' which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_group' over 'list_groups' for single-group retrieval, or how it differs from 'get_entity' which might also fetch groups. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage hints are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read operation, but doesn't specify whether it's safe (non-destructive), what permissions are required, how large the subtree might be, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of tree operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'subtree' includes (e.g., depth, nodes, relationships), the return format, or error conditions. For a tool that likely returns hierarchical data, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'entityId' clearly documented as 'Root entity ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('full subtree rooted at an entity'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_children' or 'get_full_tree', which might have overlapping functionality. The description is specific enough to understand what the tool does but lacks sibling comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_children' (which might return immediate children only) or 'get_full_tree' (which might return the entire tree structure). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'Get[s] a single thread', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., if thread doesn't exist), permissions required, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Get a single thread by ID or name'—front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral context needed for reliable use. For a retrieval tool in a server with many siblings, more guidance would help the agent operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'identifier' documented as 'Thread ID or name'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, repeating 'by ID or name' without clarifying format, uniqueness, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a single thread'), specifying it retrieves by 'ID or name'. It distinguishes from list_threads (which returns multiple) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_entity or search_threads, which could also retrieve threads. The purpose is specific but sibling differentiation is incomplete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_entity (which might retrieve threads), search_threads (for filtered searches), or list_threads (for multiple threads). The description implies usage for single-thread retrieval but lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a listing operation with filtering, but doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether results are paginated, what the default sort order is, or what happens when no filters are applied. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the core purpose ('List containers') followed by the key capability ('with optional filtering'). There's zero wasted language or redundant information, making it efficient for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a listing tool with 4 filtering parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'container' represents in this context, what fields are returned, whether results are limited/paginated, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. The minimal description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered for effective tool selection and use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional filtering' but doesn't provide additional context about how filters combine (AND/OR logic), filter precedence, or practical examples of when to use each parameter. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('containers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_container' (singular retrieval) or 'get_full_tree' (hierarchical view), which would require more specific language about scope or output format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'optional filtering' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_full_tree' (for hierarchical data) or 'search_threads' (for thread-specific searches). There's no mention of prerequisites, performance considerations, or typical use cases for listing versus retrieving individual containers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get progress history' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the return format looks like, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, return values, and usage context. For a tool with two parameters and siblings that might overlap, this minimal description doesn't provide enough information for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters (threadId and limit). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'progress history' entails or how the limit applies contextually. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('progress history for a thread'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_thread' or 'edit_progress' that might also involve thread progress, missing full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_thread' or 'search_threads' that might retrieve thread-related data, the description lacks context on usage scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Move') but does not cover critical aspects like permissions required, whether the move is reversible, effects on existing relationships, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the complexity, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral traits, return values, or error handling, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or edge cases. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Move') and the resources involved ('a thread or container to a group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'set_parent' or 'archive_thread', which might also involve repositioning entities, so it misses full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'set_parent' for changing parent-child relationships or 'archive_thread' for removing threads. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as search scope, result format, pagination, permissions needed, or rate limits, which are critical for a search operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of search operations and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover result behavior, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'query' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying text-based search, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('search') and resources ('threads and containers'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'list_threads' or 'get_thread', which would require more specificity about search vs. listing operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_threads' or 'get_thread'. The description implies text-based searching but doesn't specify contexts or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Set') but does not explain permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, effects on existing relationships, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('entityId' and 'parentId') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases, but this is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the target ('parent of a thread or container'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'move_to_group' or 'update_container', which might also involve hierarchical changes, so it lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'move_to_group' or 'update_container'. The description implies usage for setting parent-child relationships but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update properties' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing properties not mentioned, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward update operation and gets directly to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens during the update, what the response looks like, or potential side effects. Given the complexity of modifying a container and the lack of structured safety information, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (id, name, description, tags). This meets the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('properties of a container'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_group' or 'update_thread', which have similar update patterns for different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'create_container', 'delete_container', 'get_container', and 'list_containers' available, there's no indication of when updating is appropriate versus creating new containers or retrieving existing ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified properties, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just four words, front-loading the essential information ('Update properties of a group') with zero wasted words. Every element of the description serves a clear purpose, making it highly efficient despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens during the update process, what permissions are required, whether there are side effects, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of group management and the lack of structured behavioral information, the description should provide more context about the operation's behavior and 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (id, name, description) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but since the schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('properties of a group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from creation tools like 'create_group' by focusing on modification rather than creation. However, it doesn't specify what types of properties can be updated beyond what's implied by the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing group ID), doesn't differentiate from similar update tools like 'update_container' or 'update_thread', and offers no context about appropriate use cases or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update properties of an existing thread' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified properties, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format that would help an agent understand how to use this tool effectively in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 8 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('properties of an existing thread'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_container' or 'update_group', which have similar update operations on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'archive_thread', 'edit_progress', and 'search_threads' available, there's no indication of when this specific thread update tool is appropriate versus those other thread-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'suggests' based on priority, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, how priorities are determined, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Suggest the next thread to work on based on priority.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (prioritization logic) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how priorities are calculated, what data sources are used, or what the suggestion output includes. For a tool that likely involves algorithmic decision-making, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids mentioning any. A baseline score of 4 is given since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce unnecessary complexity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Suggest the next thread to work on based on priority.' It specifies both the action ('suggest') and the resource ('thread'), and distinguishes it from siblings like list_threads or get_thread by focusing on prioritization rather than listing or retrieving. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from search_threads, which might also involve prioritization, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing existing threads or progress data, or compare it to siblings like list_threads or search_threads that might also help with thread selection. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all groups' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes metadata, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and easy to understand. No structural improvements are needed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on return format (e.g., list structure, fields) and behavioral traits. For a basic list operation, this is acceptable but leaves room for more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and 'List all groups' appropriately implies no filtering or input requirements. This meets the baseline for parameterless tools.
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 'List all groups' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('groups'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_group' (singular retrieval) and 'create_group' (creation). However, it doesn't specify scope beyond 'all' or differentiate from potential filtering tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'list_groups' over 'get_group' (for single group retrieval) or 'search_threads' (if groups are related to threads). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about typical use cases.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JoshuaRamirez/threads-mcp'

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