groupme-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.1
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources and actions, with clear boundaries. However, some potential confusion exists between list_chats and list_direct_messages, as both relate to direct messaging but serve slightly different purposes. Overall, descriptions help clarify distinctions.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as create_group, list_messages, and update_user. Minor deviations include get_me (instead of get_my_profile) and destroy_bot/destroy_group (using 'destroy' instead of 'delete'), but these are minimal and don't disrupt readability.
Tool Count3/5
With 29 tools, the count is borderline high for a messaging/group management server, potentially overwhelming for agents. While it covers many features, it might benefit from consolidation or categorization to reduce complexity, as some tools like check_block and create_block could be merged into a single block management tool.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for the GroupMe domain, including full CRUD operations for groups, messages, bots, and blocks, along with user management and direct messaging. No obvious gaps exist; agents can handle all core workflows from group creation to messaging and member management.
Average 3.3/5 across 29 of 29 tools scored. Lowest: 2.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 26, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Unblock a user') but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, error conditions (e.g., if no block exists), or what happens on success. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the main purpose ('Unblock a user.') followed by parameter details. It's efficient with two sentences, though the Args section could be integrated more smoothly. No wasted words, but minor structural improvements are possible.
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 explains parameters well but lacks critical context: what the tool returns, error handling, side effects, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'list_blocks'. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters in the Args section: 'user_id: The ID of the user doing the unblocking' and 'other_user_id: The ID of the user to unblock.' This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's titles ('User Id', 'Other User Id'), distinguishing the roles of the two user IDs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Unblock a user' which is a clear verb+resource, but it contradicts the tool name 'delete_block' (suggesting deletion of a block rather than unblocking). The description doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_block' or 'check_block' beyond the basic action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_block' (blocking) or 'check_block' (checking block status). The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing block to unblock, or context for when unblocking 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Create') but doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., bot permissions, default settings, or response format). It mentions optional parameters but doesn't clarify their effects (e.g., what 'dm_notification' enables). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized: a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of parameters. Each sentence earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded with key behavioral details, but overall it's efficient and readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 5 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and parameters but misses critical context: what the bot can do after creation, error conditions, permissions needed, or what the tool returns. For a tool that creates a resource, this leaves too many unknowns for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'The bot's display name'), adding basic semantics beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., URL validation for 'avatar_url'), constraints, or examples, leaving parameters partially documented but not fully clarified.
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 bot') and resource ('in a group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'post_as_bot' or 'destroy_bot' beyond the basic verb, missing explicit comparison that would warrant a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_bots' or 'destroy_bot'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., group ownership/permissions) or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, offering only basic functional information without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter section could be slightly more detailed 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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns group ID), error conditions, or how this tool relates to sibling group management tools, leaving the agent with incomplete operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists all 4 parameters with brief explanations, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't elaborate on constraints (e.g., name length limits, image URL format requirements) or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.
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 'new group', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_block' or 'create_bot' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_group' or 'destroy_group', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for group creation. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief with two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. There's no wasted text, and the structure is logical with purpose first, then parameters. It could be slightly improved by front-loading more critical information about the tool's destructive nature.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical context like whether deletion is permanent, what confirmation is needed, what errors might occur, or what the response contains. The agent lacks necessary information to use this tool safely and 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 description adds the parameter 'bot_id' with a brief explanation ('The ID of the bot to delete'), which provides basic semantic context. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this meets the baseline expectation without adding significant value beyond what's minimally required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a bot'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_block' or 'destroy_group', but the specificity of 'bot' as the target resource provides adequate 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. There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or when to choose this over other deletion-related tools like 'delete_block' or 'destroy_group'. The agent receives no 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('Get details') without covering critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' entail (e.g., format, fields). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the purpose stated clearly in the first sentence and parameter details following. There is no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured for optimal clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'details' are returned, potential errors, or behavioral traits like idempotency. This inadequacy makes it insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's context and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that explains 'group_id: The ID of the group,' adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, this is minimal information (just one parameter), and it doesn't elaborate on format or constraints, so it meets the baseline but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get details for a specific group,' which includes a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('group'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'list_groups' or 'get_member_results,' which limits its score to 4 instead of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when to choose 'get_group' over 'list_groups' or other sibling tools. This absence of usage instructions results in a low score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, whether joining is reversible, or what happens on success/failure. 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise parameter list. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it efficient 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, return values, and doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap, making it inadequate for safe agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'share_token' comes from 'the group's share URL', which clarifies its source beyond the schema. However, it doesn't detail 'group_id' format or constraints, leaving half the parameters inadequately documented.
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 'Join' and the resource 'a group', specifying it uses a share token. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_group' or 'rejoin_group' by focusing on joining via token, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'rejoin_group' which might have similar semantics.
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 'rejoin_group' or 'add_members' is provided. The description implies usage when you have a share token, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Like a message') but doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, idempotency, or what happens if the message doesn't exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with a clear action statement followed by parameter details. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'liking' entails in this context, what the expected outcome is, or error conditions. Given the complexity of social interactions and the lack of structured data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists both parameters with brief explanations ('conversation_id: The group ID or direct message conversation ID', 'message_id: The ID of the message to like'), adding meaning beyond the schema's 0% coverage. However, it doesn't clarify format expectations (e.g., string patterns) or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.
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 ('Like a message') and identifies the resource (a message), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'unlike_message' beyond the opposite action, missing an opportunity for clearer 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 like 'unlike_message' or other message-related tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Post a message') but doesn't describe what 'posting' entails (e.g., where the message appears, visibility, notification behavior), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves API calls and permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first establishes the action, and the subsequent lines document parameters. There's no redundant or verbose language, making it 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 tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It covers basic parameter names but lacks critical context: where messages are posted, authentication needs, response format, error handling, and usage boundaries relative to sibling tools. This leaves the agent poorly equipped to use the tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., bot_id format, text length limits, picture_url requirements), leaving the agent to guess or rely on external knowledge. This partial compensation earns a baseline score.
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 ('Post') and resource ('a message as a bot'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'send_message' or 'send_direct_message' by specifying the bot identity aspect. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives in the description text itself.
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 'send_message' or 'send_direct_message'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing bot credentials), appropriate contexts, or exclusion criteria. 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool checks for block existence but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what 'exists' means (e.g., unidirectional vs. bidirectional blocking), error handling (e.g., if users don't exist), authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by parameter explanations. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly.
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 low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, block details, error messages) or behavioral aspects like idempotency or side effects, 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.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds semantic meaning by explaining that 'user_id' is 'The ID of the first user' and 'other_user_id' is 'The ID of the second user,' clarifying their roles beyond just being string parameters. However, it doesn't specify format (e.g., numeric vs. UUID) or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if a block exists between two users.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('block'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_blocks' or 'create_block/delete_block' beyond the checking vs. listing/creating 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. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_blocks' (which might list all blocks for a user) or explain prerequisites (e.g., whether users must exist). It only states what the tool does, not when it's 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. It states the tool lists blocked users but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details in a simple format. It avoids unnecessary words and is front-loaded with the main functionality. However, the 'Args:' section could be integrated more smoothly, and it lacks completeness in behavioral details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the purpose and parameter but omits critical details like return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely returns a list of users, this leaves the agent guessing about the output structure and usage nuances.
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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'user_id' by explaining it's 'The ID of the user whose block list to retrieve.' This clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's basic title 'User Id'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates for the parameter's semantics, though it doesn't cover format or constraints.
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: 'List all users blocked by a given user.' It specifies the verb ('list') and resource ('users blocked'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_block' or 'delete_block', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'list_blocks' over 'check_block' (which might check if a specific user is blocked) or other related tools. There's no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('List') but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured parameter explanation. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the 'Args' section could be integrated more seamlessly.
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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination, ordering, error cases) and doesn't explain the return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent to navigate.
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 description includes an 'Args' section that explains all three parameters, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). It clarifies that 'other_user_id' is required and describes the temporal filtering roles of 'before_id' and 'since_id', effectively compensating for the schema gap.
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 ('direct messages with another user'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_messages' or 'list_chats', 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 like 'list_messages' or 'list_chats', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Rejoin,' implying a mutation, but doesn't cover permissions required, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., if the group no longer exists or if the user wasn't previously a member), or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise parameter explanation. It avoids unnecessary details, but the 'Args' section could be integrated more smoothly rather than as a separate block.
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 information on permissions, error handling, return values, and how it differs from similar tools like 'join_group.' This makes it incomplete 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.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that explains 'group_id' as 'The ID of the group to rejoin,' adding meaningful context beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage and only provides a title 'Group Id'). This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail format or validation rules.
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 ('Rejoin') and resource ('a group you previously left'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'join_group' (which might be for initial joining) or 'update_membership' (which could handle various membership changes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance by mentioning 'a group you previously left,' which implies a prerequisite condition. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'join_group' or 'update_membership,' nor does it mention any exclusions or edge 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves profile information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific data is returned (e.g., fields like name, email). 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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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, no annotations), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., authentication needs, return format) and doesn't leverage the absence of structured data to provide more context, making it insufficient for full agent understanding without additional inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately avoids redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't add unnecessary 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('authenticated user's profile information'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from potential sibling tools like 'get_group' or 'update_user', which could also involve user data, leaving room for minor ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_group' for group-related user info or 'update_user' for modifying user data, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It implies a read-only operation by using 'List', but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond parameters, or what 'active groups' means. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter details are organized in a clear 'Args' section, though the example for 'omit' could be slightly more concise. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, return format, and sibling tool differentiation. For a list tool with three parameters, it meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.
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 description adds meaningful context for all three parameters beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains 'page' for pagination, 'per_page' with a max value, and 'omit' with an example, effectively compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 ('the authenticated user's active groups'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_former_groups' or 'get_group', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_former_groups' for inactive groups or 'get_group' for a single group. It mentions the authenticated user's context but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens upon success/failure (e.g., error if membership_id is invalid). It mentions the parameters but adds no behavioral context beyond the basic operation, leaving critical gaps for safe invocation.
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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point list of parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language, making it easy to scan 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 tool's complexity (a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, error handling), output expectations, and usage guidelines. While it covers parameter semantics adequately, the overall context is insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent without additional assumptions.
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 description adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'group_id' identifies the group, and 'membership_id' specifies which member to remove. Since schema description coverage is 0% (titles only provide basic labels), this compensates well by clarifying what each parameter represents in the context of the operation. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., ID structure) or examples, keeping it from a perfect score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a member from a group'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_membership' or 'destroy_group', which might also involve membership changes, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific removal operation is appropriate versus alternatives.
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 admin permissions), exclusions (e.g., cannot remove the last admin), or compare it to related tools like 'update_membership' for role changes or 'destroy_group' for group deletion. This lack of context could lead to misuse in complex 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation but doesn't cover important aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, validation rules (e.g., email format), or what happens when only some fields are provided. The description is minimal beyond the basic operation type.
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 and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameter meanings but lacks crucial behavioral context, usage guidance, and output information that would help an agent use this tool 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 description provides clear semantic explanations for all 4 parameters (avatar_url, name, email, zip_code) in the Args section, adding meaningful context beyond the schema's basic titles. This is valuable since schema description coverage is 0%, though it doesn't specify format requirements or constraints.
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 ('authenticated user's profile'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_group' or 'update_membership' beyond the resource being updated.
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., authentication status), exclusions, or comparisons with related tools like 'get_me' for viewing the profile or other update tools for different resources.
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 ('Block a user') but doesn't explain what blocking means (e.g., prevents communication, hides content), whether it's reversible, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point list of parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks critical behavioral context (e.g., effects of blocking, error conditions, return values). It's minimally viable but has clear gaps.
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 description explicitly documents both parameters ('user_id' and 'other_user_id') with clear explanations of their roles, despite 0% schema description coverage. This fully compensates for the schema gap, though it doesn't provide format examples or validation rules, keeping it from a perfect score.
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 ('Block a user') and identifies the resource (user), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'delete_block' or explain what 'blocking' entails in this context, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_block' or 'delete_block', nor does it mention prerequisites or contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient.
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's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination, sorting, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if no bots exist. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.
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 ('List all bots') and efficiently adds necessary context ('created by the authenticated user'). Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the resource and scope but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., output format, pagination) that would help an agent use it correctly, especially since there's no output schema to clarify return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool by not introducing confusion.
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 ('List all bots') and specifies the resource scope ('created by the authenticated user'), which distinguishes it from potential sibling tools like 'create_bot' or 'destroy_bot'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations (e.g., 'list_groups', 'list_chats') beyond 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare it to other list tools, or indicate scenarios where it's preferred over other bot-related tools like 'create_bot' or 'destroy_bot'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the 'source_guid' parameter prevents duplicate sends, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, whether messages are editable/deletable after sending, or what happens on success/failure. The description is insufficient 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 efficiently structured with a clear opening sentence followed by a well-organized parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate parameter semantics but lacks critical behavioral context. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important constraints beyond the text length limit. The description is minimally viable but has clear gaps given the tool's complexity.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides valuable semantic context for all 4 parameters: it explains what 'group_id' and 'text' are for, clarifies the purpose of 'source_guid' (prevent duplicate sends, auto-generated if blank), and describes 'attachments' as optional with examples of attachment types. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 ('Send a message') and target resource ('to a group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'send_direct_message' or 'post_as_bot', which would require explicit comparison for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_direct_message' or 'post_as_bot'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to be a group member) or any context about when this operation is appropriate versus inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates settings but doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description mentions parameters can be left blank to keep current values, which is useful context, but overall behavioral traits are minimally covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It could be slightly more front-loaded with usage context, but overall it's efficient without being terse.
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 a mutation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does reasonably well by explaining all parameters. However, it lacks information about return values, error conditions, and behavioral constraints that would be important for a tool that modifies group settings. The parameter explanations partially compensate for other gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate - and it does excellently. It provides clear semantics for all 6 parameters: identifies 'group_id' as the required identifier, explains that name/description/image_url can be left blank to keep current values, and clarifies that share and office_mode are boolean toggles. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 tool's purpose as 'Update a group's settings' which is a specific verb (update) and resource (group settings). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_group' or 'destroy_group' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_membership' or 'update_user' which also modify group-related entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing group_id), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new groups), or refer to sibling tools like 'get_group' for checking current settings or 'update_membership' for different update types. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieval and pagination parameters (before_id, since_id, after_id, limit) but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what happens with invalid IDs. For a read operation with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point style explanation of each parameter. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The formatting makes it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It excels at parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. For a retrieval tool with pagination, it should ideally mention ordering, response format, or error handling to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: group_id identifies the group, before_id/since_id/after_id control pagination timing, and limit specifies quantity with max/default values. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions, making parameter meanings clear.
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 'retrieve' and resource 'messages from a group', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'send_message' or 'list_direct_messages' by focusing on retrieval from groups. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_chats' or 'list_direct_messages' beyond the group 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 'list_chats', 'list_direct_messages', or 'get_group' for group information. It mentions the tool's function but offers no context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters 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 ('Unlike') which implies a mutation/write operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the message wasn't previously liked. The description is minimal beyond stating 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 perfectly concise with zero wasted words. It states the purpose in one clear sentence, then provides parameter explanations in a structured format. Every sentence earns its place and the information is front-loaded effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 2 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but lacks important context. It explains what the tool does and what parameters mean, but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, side effects, or return values that would be important for a write operation.
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 description provides clear parameter documentation in the Args section, explaining what each parameter represents ('The group ID or direct message conversation ID', 'The ID of the message to unlike'). With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates by adding essential semantic meaning beyond the bare 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 ('Unlike') and the resource ('a previously liked message'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'like_message' by specifying the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly mention the sibling relationship.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by stating 'previously liked message', suggesting this tool should be used after a message has been liked. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites beyond having a liked message.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists conversations (a read operation) and mentions sorting behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like. It adds some behavioral context but is incomplete 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place by adding necessary information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks output details, error handling, and differentiation from siblings, leaving gaps for the agent to navigate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explicitly explains that 'page' is for pagination and 'per_page' controls the number of chats per page, providing clear semantics that the schema's titles ('Page', 'Per Page') alone do not convey.
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 'direct message conversations', specifying they belong to the authenticated user and are sorted by most recent. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_direct_messages' or 'list_groups', which reduces clarity about when to choose this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_direct_messages' or 'list_groups'. The description implies it's for direct messages but doesn't clarify exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'max 1000 characters' for text and 'prevent duplicate sends' for source_guid, adding some behavioral context. However, it lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid recipient), or what happens on success (e.g., message ID returned). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a bullet-like 'Args:' section that efficiently explains parameters. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff. The structure is clear and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., error handling, return values). For a mutation tool that sends messages, more context on outcomes and constraints would be beneficial, though the parameter semantics help compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all parameters: recipient_id ('user ID of the recipient'), text ('message text' with max length), source_guid ('unique ID to prevent duplicate sends'), and attachments ('optional list of attachment objects'). This goes beyond the schema's basic types, though it doesn't fully detail attachment object structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('send a direct message') and the target ('to another user'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'send_message' (which might be for group chats) and 'post_as_bot'. It uses a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about its function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for direct messaging, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'send_message' or 'post_as_bot'. It provides no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., recipient must be a valid user) or exclusions (e.g., cannot send to blocked users). The context is clear but lacks explicit comparison to siblings.
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 mentions the nickname length constraint (1-50 characters), which is useful, but doesn't address critical aspects like required permissions, whether the change is reversible, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clean parameter breakdown. Every sentence earns its place—no wasted words, and the structure makes it easy to scan quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks information about return values, error handling, or side effects, which would be needed for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains both parameters: group_id identifies the target group, and nickname specifies the new value with a length constraint. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover format details like what constitutes a valid group_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Update your nickname') and resource ('in a group'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_group (which modifies group settings) or update_user (which modifies user profile). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'your nickname,' suggesting it's for modifying the caller's own nickname rather than others'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like update_user (which might handle nickname changes in a different context) or provide clear exclusions for when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a destructive operation ('permanently delete') and specifies an authorization requirement ('Only the group creator can do this'). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens to group members/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 perfectly concise with two focused sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and constraints, and another documenting the single parameter. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
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 does the minimum viable job by stating the action and authorization requirement. However, it doesn't address important context like what 'permanently' entails, whether deletion can be undone, what confirmation is needed, or what the response looks like.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description adds meaningful context by explaining that 'group_id' refers to 'The ID of the group to delete.' This provides essential semantic information beyond what the bare schema offers, though it doesn't specify format or validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('permanently delete') and target resource ('a group'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_block' or 'destroy_bot'. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit context about when to use this tool by stating 'Only the group creator can do this,' which establishes a prerequisite condition. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral trait of listing based on user's past actions (leaving groups), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or output format. For a read-only tool with zero annotation coverage, this is adequate but minimal.
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, front-loading the purpose efficiently. It earns its place by providing essential context without redundancy.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is complete enough for a simple list operation. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling, making it minimally viable but with gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description does not add param info, but with zero params, the baseline is 4 as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List') and resource ('groups the authenticated user has previously left'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_groups' (current groups) and 'rejoin_group' (rejoining). It precisely defines the scope of returned groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'groups the authenticated user has previously left,' which naturally suggests when to use it (to find former groups) versus alternatives like 'list_groups' (for current groups). However, it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, keeping it at a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies this is a read operation ('Poll') but doesn't specify behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, rate-limited, or what the polling interval/retry logic might be. It mentions the dependency on 'add_members' but lacks details on error handling or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise Args section. Every sentence earns its place by explaining parameters without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a polling tool: it doesn't explain what the result contains (e.g., success/failure status, member details), polling behavior, or error cases. It covers basic usage but lacks operational context needed for robust agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for both parameters: 'group_id' is 'The ID of the group' and 'results_id' is 'The GUID returned from add_members', clarifying their sources and roles beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., UUID for results_id).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Poll the result') and resource ('of an add_members request'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_members' (which initiates the request) and 'get_group' (which retrieves group info). It precisely identifies its role in the workflow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states when to use this tool: after 'add_members' has been called, using the 'GUID returned from add_members'. This provides clear prerequisites and distinguishes it from alternatives like checking group membership via 'get_group' or 'list_groups'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a write operation (implied by 'Add'), specifies it's asynchronous (requiring polling), and provides operational context about tracking with 'guid'. It doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but offers substantial behavioral insight beyond basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter documentation is somewhat dense. It could be slightly more structured but remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, async behavior, polling instructions, and detailed parameter semantics. It lacks explicit error handling, permissions, or return value details, but given the context, it provides substantial completeness for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing both parameters. It explains 'group_id' as 'The ID of the group' and provides comprehensive documentation for 'members', including required fields ('nickname' and at least one identifier), optional 'guid', and format specifics. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Add one or more members') and target resource ('to a group'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'remove_member' or 'update_membership'. It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement that is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly mentions that this is an 'Async operation' and instructs to 'poll with get_member_results', providing clear context about when to use this tool versus alternatives for checking results. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare it directly to other sibling tools like 'update_membership'.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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