Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-vitals

agent-vitals

by Keremozdemirra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

candidates

Find permissive repositories worth acting on: quiet projects still asked about for reviving or forking, and busy projects short of hands to contribute to.

Instructions

Two acted-on lists: quiet permissive repositories still asked about (to revive or fork) and busy permissive ones short of hands (to contribute to).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "candidates"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNo
limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only listing, what the return shape is, how results are ordered, or what 'acted-on' means. It provides only vague category context.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single sentence with no filler, but the compressed noun-phrase style ('acted-on lists', 'short of hands') is cryptic and front-loads ambiguity rather than operational 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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description should explain what the tool returns and how to use its arguments. Core operational details are missing, making it incomplete for even a simple two-parameter listing tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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, yet it never mentions the 'kind' or 'limit' parameters. The two list categories hint at the revive/contribute enum values but do not explain 'both', the default behavior, or the 1-50 limit.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names two categories of permissive repositories (quiet and still asked about vs. busy and short of hands) but never states a clear verb or explicitly says the tool returns a list of candidates. The tool name 'candidates' is only obliquely explained, leaving the core action vague.

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?

Usage is only implied through the parenthetical goals ('to revive or fork', 'to contribute to'); there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. It also gives no routing against siblings like lookup, search, or summary.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools