carter-mcp

by Mariner10

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.6.0
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple ways to add controls (add_control, insert_example, customize_on_phone) and multiple push/save layout functions (push_buffer, push_layout, save_buffer, save_layout). The descriptions help but the high number of similar tools makes it confusing for an agent to select the correct one.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_control, remove_control, update_control, push_buffer). Minor deviations exist, such as 'autotune_gauge' and 'customize_on_phone', but the overall pattern is predictable and clear.
Tool Count2/5
With 57 tools, the server has an excessive number for its domain (a layout editor for a device). Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple push/save functions, multiple validation/linting tools). This overpopulation adds unnecessary complexity.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: layout creation and editing (add, remove, move, update controls), device connection, data probing, validation, generation (adapter, service, theme), testing (simulate, run_scenario), and chat interaction. There are no obvious gaps for the intended purpose.
Average 4/5 across 57 of 57 tools scored. Lowest: 3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 12 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a non-destructive save operation and the ability to revert, which gives basic transparency. However, it does not disclose whether snapshots are overwritten, if there are limits, or any permissions needed. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is somewhat terse and could include a bit more detail (e.g., about the label parameter) without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The presence of an output schema reduces the burden on the description for return values. Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of sibling tools for similar actions, the description provides adequate context but could be more explicit about the snapshot lifecycle (e.g., how to revert and list snapshots).
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?
The input schema has one optional 'label' parameter with a default, but the description does not mention it at all. Given 0% schema coverage in the description, it adds no meaning beyond the schema itself. The parameter is optional, so some guidance on when to provide a label would improve this 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 saves a snapshot of the working buffer for later reverting. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('save a snapshot') and conveys the purpose ('revert later'), but does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'save_buffer'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that it is for temporary undo points compared to permanent saves, nor does it give any prerequisites 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, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It lacks details on side effects, required permissions, error handling (e.g., invalid control_id), and whether changes are reversible. The impact of omitting optional parameters is not explained.
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 short and to the point, with a clear first sentence followed by an Args section. Every sentence adds value, though the Args section could be integrated into the prose for even greater 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?
Despite having an output schema (per context signals), the description does not mention return values or success/failure indicators. For a mutation tool, it lacks context on what happens after the move (e.g., confirmation, error on invalid tab_index). The description is incomplete for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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 basic meaning for each parameter (control_id, position, span, tab_index) but lacks specifics like array format (0-based indexing?), constraints (e.g., valid ranges), or behavior when parameters are null. The description is minimal but functional.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's actions: reposition, resize, or move a control to another tab. It uses specific verbs and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_control, remove_control, and update_control.
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 such as update_control. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., control must exist) or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'live' action and a prerequisite (listen sync), but does not disclose side effects, rate limits, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is short but the first sentence is dense; could be rephrased for clarity. The Args section is clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description focuses on input. It covers both parameters and a prerequisite. Could elaborate on invalid value handling, but sufficient for simple tool.
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 coverage, description adds concrete examples for value_json (e.g., 82, 'online', true) and a constraint for control_id (must have a listen sync). This meaningfully aids usage.
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 states it drives a buffer control by emitting a frame at a valuePath, but uses jargon ('emit a frame', 'valuePath') that may be unclear. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_control' only implicitly.
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 (e.g., update_control). No conditions or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without revealing behavioral traits such as side effects, error handling, or permission requirements. The existence of an output schema is not referenced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple removal tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on error conditions (e.g., non-existent control_id) and does not describe the output behavior, even though an output schema exists.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal value by stating 'by id', which only paraphrases the parameter name. It does not elaborate on the nature or source of the control_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 action ('Remove') and the resource ('control from the buffer') with the identifier attribute ('by id'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like 'add_control', 'update_control', and 'move_control'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions for removal.
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. It discloses the action but omits details like side effects (e.g., overwriting), error handling, or required device state. The optional filename behavior is mentioned, but further transparency is lacking.
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 two sentences plus a concise args note, front-loading the main action. It is efficient but could benefit from slightly more structure or formatting (e.g., bullet points).
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 an output schema exists, the description covers basic functionality. However, it lacks prerequisites (e.g., device connected, buffer exists) and expected return behavior. Adequate for a simple tool but incomplete for complex contexts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds value by explaining the default behavior for the 'filename' parameter (derived from layout name if omitted). However, it does not specify format, constraints, or the impact of an empty string.
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 it pushes the working buffer and persists it to disk, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'push_buffer' by emphasizing disk persistence.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., push_buffer, snapshot_buffer). The description only explains what it does, not the context or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'permanently' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing layout), required device state, or failure modes. Lacks behavioral detail.
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?
Description is concise with two clear sentences plus argument doc. Efficiently communicates core action, though the argument section slightly overlaps with schema. Well front-loaded.
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?
Output schema exists but description omits return value. Tool is a mutation with no discussion of success/error indicators, prerequisites like device connection, or how permanence is handled. Given complexity and sibling count, more context needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage. Description adds meaning by stating 'Complete layout JSON string' and 'Must be valid LayoutConfig', which clarifies expected format and constraints 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 'Push a layout and tell the device to save it to disk permanently' clearly states the verb (push and save) and resource (layout to device), and distinguishes from siblings like push_layout (which may not save permanently) and save_device_layout (which may save existing layout).
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 push_layout, save_buffer, or save_device_layout. The description does not specify prerequisites or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'returns full JSON' but does not specify the response structure or any error handling. No mention of side effects or permissions for this read operation.
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?
Description is very concise, consisting of one sentence and an Args list. It is front-loaded but could be improved with clearer structure (e.g., separate lines). No 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param, output schema present), description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention that names come from 'list_sample_layouts' or behavior on invalid names.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds value by explaining the 'name' parameter accepts filenames (e.g., 'demo-offline.json') or names without extension. This clarifies the expected input beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get the full JSON of a sample layout file,' specifying both the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_sample_layouts' (listing) and 'get_device_layout' (device-specific).
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 vs. alternatives such as 'list_sample_layouts' or 'get_layout_schema.' It does not mention prerequisites like first listing available names.
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 bears full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, omitting idempotency, side effects, scope (which buffer's snapshots?), or behavior with no snapshots.
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?
A single, clear sentence is efficient. However, it could be improved by adding context about scope or output without increasing length significantly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. But it fails to specify whether it lists snapshots for the current buffer or all buffers, leaving ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter detail but none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'saved buffer snapshots', immediately conveying the tool's function. Among siblings, 'snapshot_buffer' creates snapshots, so listing complements it without confusion.
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 (e.g., snaphot_buffer or other listing tools). The description lacks context about prerequisites 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool replaces the working buffer, which is a significant side effect. However, it does not mention other potential behaviors such as required permissions, performance impact, or error conditions.
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 very concise with two sentences and a brief Args line. It is front-loaded with the primary action and every part serves a purpose, except possibly the quoted phrase which adds style but no essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main action and the buffer replacement side effect. It does not discuss prerequisites (e.g., active mesh socket) or return values, but the output schema likely covers the latter.
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 parameter 'name' is described as 'Layout name' in the Args section. Given 0% schema description coverage, this adds some meaning but is minimal. The description does not explain the default value or accepted values beyond a string.
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 it visualizes a live MeshSocket network as a graph layout with animated nodes/edges. It is specific about the resource (mesh network) and action (visualize/build/push), but does not explicitly differentiate from related sibling tools like show_grid or show_qr.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or use cases for selecting this tool over others.
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 provided; description lacks warnings about potentially destructive nature of overwriting the current buffer. No mention of side effects or prerequisites.
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?
Extremely concise: one-line purpose followed by parameter details. No 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?
Adequate for a simple restore operation with one optional parameter, but lacks output schema details and safety context for a potentially destructive action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning to the 'index' parameter: explains it refers to snapshot index, references list_snapshots, and clarifies default behavior (-1 = latest).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Restore the working buffer from a snapshot') and resource ('working buffer'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like save_buffer or snapshot_buffer.
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 (e.g., undo vs revert vs discard). Implied usage from the description but no explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only listing, but lacks any details on restrictions or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundant or unnecessary words. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining what is listed (theme vibes) and its relation to generate_theme.
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) and the resource (built-in theme vibes), and links to generate_theme, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_controls.
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 as a precursor to generate_theme, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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?
Discloses immediate rendering, feedback on success/rejection, and fallback to broadcast. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Does not mention destructive potential or authorization requirements.
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?
Description is short, front-loaded with purpose, and efficiently structures additional behavior details in separate paragraphs. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, output schema present), the description covers behavior and parameter semantics adequately. However, it could mention output schema or error handling.
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?
Adds meaning to the single parameter layout_json by stating it must be a complete LayoutConfig, but does not explain the format or provide examples. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates somewhat.
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 (push) and resource (layout) with target (paired device). It distinguishes from siblings like push_buffer, but does not explicitly differentiate from other layout-related tools like save_layout or get_device_layout.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context on behavior for single vs. no paired device (fallback to broadcast), but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like save_layout or validate_layout.
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 describes the tool as a read-only operation (ASCII occupancy map) and mentions which cells are filled by which control. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling for invalid tab_index, rate limits, or permissions. The description is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by a contextual usage hint. Every word earns its place, and there is no wasted text.
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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, with one parameter undocumented in the description and no annotations, the description is only minimally complete. It tells what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks detail about the parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'tab_index' parameter at all. The tool's description adds no meaning beyond the schema's property definition. This is a significant gap for a single parameter.
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 it provides an ASCII occupancy map of a tab's grid, showing filled and free cells. The verb 'show' and resource 'grid' are specific, and the purpose to visually inspect layout before editing is well articulated. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'show_mesh_graph' or 'get_layout_schema' by focusing on grid occupancy.
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 includes the phrase 'See the layout spatially before editing,' which provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, though the implied use case is sufficient.
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, description discloses the merge behavior and null removal, but lacks details on side effects, authentication, or error handling.
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?
Description is brief and front-loaded with the main action. The example adds clarity without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple update tool with output schema present, the description adequately covers the operation, but could mention return value or failure conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds value by explaining control_id as the target ID and patch_json with an example JSON object, clarifying the expected format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it merges fields into an existing control and distinguishes from siblings like add_control and remove_control by specifying the merge behavior and null removal.
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?
Does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_control_value. Only describes basic parameters without usage context.
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?
Discloses auto-assignment and auto-placement behavior, but with no annotations, the description should also cover side effects (e.g., reflow, conflicts) or error conditions. It provides basic transparency but not comprehensive.
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?
Concise paragraph with bullet points, main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value; no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema and parameters are explained, the description is fairly complete. However, could mention what happens with conflicting positions or validation, but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains each parameter clearly: control_json with example, tab_index default, position optionality. Adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add one control to the buffer') and key automatic behaviors (auto-assigns unique id, auto-places in next free grid slot). It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_control or update_control.
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 add_group or insert_example. The description lacks context about prerequisites or 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies the working buffer, creates new files, or requires network permissions. The phrase 'uses the working buffer' is vague regarding read vs. write.
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: two sentences explaining the core action and one sentence per parameter. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details about what the tool returns (output schema exists but not mentioned), error conditions, or the adapter format. For a tool with only two parameters and output schema, it is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description adds meaning by stating base_url is the REST endpoint to poll and layout_json is optional, defaulting to the working buffer. This goes beyond the schema's bare defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates an adapter from REST poll to MeshSocket, mapping fields to value paths. It specifies the main inputs (base_url, layout_json) and distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'generate_service' and 'generate_theme'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a REST-to-MeshSocket adapter is needed and mentions that layout_json defaults to the working buffer. However, it does not explicitly state when to use versus not use, nor does it reference alternative tools (e.g., 'connect', 'generate_service').
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 provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authorization needs, or side effects. Merely states listing without safety context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, clear sentence with no extraneous information. Efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple list tool with zero parameters, but could mention return structure or that it's a read operation. Output schema exists but description doesn't reference it.
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?
Tool has no parameters; schema coverage is 100%. Baseline 4 applies as description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb (list), resource (sample layout files), and purpose (references). Distinguishes from siblings like get_sample_layout and list_device_layouts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_sample_layout or list_device_layouts. Usage is implied but not clarified.
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 full burden. It states the tool adds a tab and returns its index, and explains mode and row_height behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions needed, or whether the operation is reversible. Given the simple nature of adding a tab, the description is adequate but could be more transparent.
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, using one sentence and two bullet-like lines. It is front-loaded with purpose. However, a more structured format (e.g., listing parameters) could improve readability without adding length.
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 presence of an output schema, the description correctly omits return details beyond index. However, with 6 parameters and only 2 explained, the description is incomplete for a tool of this complexity. The sibling list is large, but the description sufficiently distinguishes the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains two parameters (mode and row_height) with semantics and defaults, but fails to describe the other four parameters (icon, rows, title, columns). Title is required and omitted entirely. This leaves gaps in understanding for the agent.
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 'Add a tab to the buffer' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly mentions the return value (index). Among siblings like add_control or add_group, this uniquely identifies tab addition, providing distinction.
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 guidance on when to use 'flow' vs 'grid' mode, including use cases for flow (full-page map/chat/cardList/plain form). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, which would improve clarity.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool retrieves documentation, without mentioning read-only nature, auth requirements, or side effects. This is insufficient for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and information is front-loaded. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameter. Minor omission: could note that control_id values come from list_controls, but this is implicit.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides examples (e.g., 'button', 'gauge') that clarify valid control_id values, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's title alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'full documentation for a specific control type or system feature', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_control_catalog and get_control_example by focusing on full documentation for a single control.
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 (given a control_id, get its documentation) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_controls or get_control_catalog. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'Read the current values'. It omits critical behavioral details: whether the call is blocking, what happens on device disconnection, rate limits, or side effects. 'Read' implies no mutation, but explicit safety confirmation is absent.
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 short and front-loaded, using a single-line purpose followed by parameter explanation. However, the 'Args:' formatting adds minor redundancy; a more streamlined format could improve readability without losing clarity.
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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks context on error handling, device state assumptions, and whether multiple reads are cached. For a simple read tool, it is adequate but not thorough.
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 provides 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful purpose for the 'ids' parameter: 'Optional list of control ids to filter to. Omit for all controls.' This clarifies behavior beyond the schema's type definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads current values of controls on the paired device, using precise verb 'Read' and specific resource 'controls'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'set_control_value' (write) and 'list_controls' (catalog) by its focus on current values.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: filter by optional IDs or omit for all controls. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the purpose is well-defined and the usage is straightforward given the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that edits stay in the buffer after push ('Edits stay in the buffer for further work'), which is useful. However, it does not detail auth requirements, whether push is destructive on the device, or behavior with multiple paired devices.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence states action and key behavior ('rendered echo'), second clarifies state persistence. Front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0 parameters and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool does and the effect on buffer. Minor gaps: no mention of error conditions or device requirements, but acceptable for a simple tool.
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?
No parameters exist in the schema (0 params), so per rules baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Push the working buffer to the paired device,' specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like push_layout and save_buffer by focusing on device pushing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use or when to avoid. No mention of alternatives like preview_buffer or save_buffer for testing or saving locally. The phrase 'when a single device is paired' hints at a condition but lacks clarity on multi-device 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 mentions 'start (or restart)' implying potential overwrite of an existing buffer but does not detail side effects, idempotency, authorization requirements, or rate limits. Essential behavioral traits are omitted.
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: a concise one-liner purpose, a list of follow-up tools, a detailed workflow paragraph, and then a bullet-style arg list. It is front-loaded with the most critical information. Slightly verbose due to the workflow example, but each sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, and usage workflow comprehensively. It addresses the core use cases (blank buffer, from sample, from device, from device file). The only gap is the lack of behavioral details already penalized in transparency.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool's argument block in the description explains every parameter: name, columns, rows, accent, mode, row_height, from_sample, from_device, from_device_file. It differentiates between blank-buffer mode and seeding modes, adding significant context beyond the raw schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Start (or restart) the working layout buffer for incremental editing.' It specifies the resource (layout buffer), lists subsequent tools for editing, and distinguishes from siblings by positioning begin_edit as the initialization step in a multi-tool workflow.
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 step-by-step usage: after begin_edit, use add_control, preview_buffer, push_buffer, etc. It also outlines the app-authored wiring flow with concrete examples (from_device_file). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or contrast with alternatives like load_layout or push_layout directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool generates a service handling events and telemetry, and clarifies the default behavior with layout_json. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., file creation), error scenarios, or required permissions, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear first sentence stating the core purpose, followed by a brief default behavior note and a structured Args block. Every sentence adds value with no 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?
Considering the tool has an output schema and one parameter, the description is adequate but missing context about prerequisites (e.g., existence of a buffer), success outputs, or error handling. It covers the main function but not all aspects an agent might need for correct 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 coverage is 0%, but the description includes an Args section that explains layout_json as optional and defaulting to the working buffer. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it lacks details like expected format or constraints.
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 it generates a runnable Python MeshSocket service that interacts with a layout, handling events and emitting telemetry. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_adapter or generate_theme, which serve different purposes.
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 explains when to omit layout_json (defaults to working buffer) but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over other generation tools or when not to use it. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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 full burden. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'Show', and mentions 'placement issues' but does not detail any side effects, auth needs, or performance characteristics. Additional transparency about error behavior or data freshness would improve it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and immediately provides a key usage distinction. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple preview tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main outputs. However, it could be more complete by mentioning whether it requires an active buffer or how it handles empty states. Also, it only distinguishes from get_buffer_json, but not from other similar siblings like validate_buffer.
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?
The schema has one parameter (show_grids) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what this parameter does, how setting it to false affects the output, or its relation to the mentioned 'per-tab grid maps'. The parameter's meaning is left entirely to the schema's title and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool shows the current working buffer's structure, per-tab grid maps, and placement issues. It also distinguishes itself from a sibling tool (get_buffer_json) by noting that it never dumps the whole JSON.
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 a clear directive: use get_buffer_json for a full dump instead of this tool. However, it does not address when to use this tool in relation to other siblings like validate_buffer or lint tools, leaving some ambiguity.
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 fully carries the burden. It states 'discard' but doesn't clarify irreversibility or side effects, though the action is simple.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and the description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Discard') and specifies the resource ('working buffer'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'push_buffer' or 'send'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, but the action is self-evident from the name and siblings.
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?
Describes core behavior but lacks details on side effects, preconditions, or error states. No annotations to supplement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, 12 words, no redundancy. Efficiently conveys purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple zero-parameter tool with output schema. Prerequisites like connection status not mentioned, but acceptable given simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist; baseline score of 4 as there is nothing to add beyond the schema. Description does not need to explain parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Disconnect' and resource 'MeshSocket relay', clearly stating the action and effect. Distinguishes from sibling 'connect'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage as counterpart to 'connect', but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use. No alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it lists examples and gives parameter info, but omits whether it is read-only, any side effects, error handling, or pagination. Basic purpose is clear but lacks behavioral specifics.
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?
Very concise: two sentences plus a parameter line. No redundant words; front-loaded with purpose and actionable guidance. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers purpose, alternative tool, and parameter meaning. Could mention that it returns a list or that it is a read operation, but overall fairly complete given 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?
Schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter. The description explains control_id as 'Control type or doc node-id' with examples, adding meaningful context beyond the schema name and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it lists named example snippets for a control's documentation. Directly distinguishes from sibling tool get_control_example by saying to use that to fetch one.
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?
Explicitly references sibling get_control_example for fetching a single example, providing clear context for when to use each. Does not explicitly list when not to use, but guidance is adequate.
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 is the sole source for behavioral traits. It only states the action and a prerequisite, but does not disclose details such as whether the QR code is displayed or returned, its expiration, or any side effects. The output schema is mentioned as existing but not described.
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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and a simple action, the description is mostly complete. However, it could clarify the output format (e.g., image vs. text) to match the existing output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter information is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool shows a QR code for pairing a device to the current editing session. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('QR code'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'connect' which establishes the connection.
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 states a prerequisite: 'Must be connected first via the connect tool.' This provides clear context, though it does not mention when not to use the tool or list alternatives.
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 explains auto-placement and normalization of children, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, id generation format, or side effects on existing buffer. Basic traits are covered but not exhaustively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two paragraphs and bullet-like Args. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with main action, and every sentence adds value. Excellent structure.
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?
Core usage is covered: purpose, parameters, and auto-place behavior. Given an output schema exists, return values are not needed. However, missing guidance on prerequisites (e.g., buffer existence) and explicit when-to-use vs siblings, but still largely 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully. Each parameter is explained: group_json with an example, tab_index as 'Which tab to add to', and position as 'Optional [row, col]'. This adds critical meaning beyond the raw schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Add') and resource ('group container to the buffer'), and distinguishes from siblings like add_control by explaining that it adds a container with nested children. The auto-place behavior further clarifies its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for grouping controls but does not explicitly state when to use add_group over alternatives like add_control or add_tab. No exclusions or conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer context.
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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'listens for a while' and returns messages, and explains the seconds parameter. However, it does not clarify whether the call is blocking, what happens if no messages arrive (e.g., returns empty array or waits indefinitely), or if it reads existing messages first. These are moderate gaps for a listening 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 exceptionally concise: two sentences for purpose and one for parameter. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter) and has an output schema (not shown but present). The description covers the essential behavior and parameter. An agent has enough to use the tool correctly. No additional information is needed for this low-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does so clearly: 'seconds: How long to listen (default 15)'. This adds context beyond the schema's default and type, making the parameter's role explicit. The description fully compensates for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Listen' and the resource 'incoming chat messages', and explicitly connects it to the LLM's need to answer user input. It naturally distinguishes from sibling 'say_in_chat' which sends messages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the usage context (when the LLM needs to respond to user chat), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternative tools. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer use, but lacks direct comparative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the step cycle (emit, wait, expect) and that it asserts control states. It does not discuss side effects (e.g., does it modify device state?), error handling, or required permissions. The behavior is partially transparent but has 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 concise, with a clear one-line summary followed by a structured explanation of the step format. It contains no fluff, though it could be slightly more organized (e.g., bullet points) but is effective.
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 has an output schema (not shown), the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks information about error conditions, what happens on assertion failure, or performance implications. For a complex testing tool, this leaves some 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?
The single parameter 'steps_json' has 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining the expected JSON format in detail (step objects with emit, event, wait, expect fields). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema which only shows 'type: string'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Drive the device through a scripted scenario and assert control states — UI testing over the mesh, no XCUITest.' It uses specific verbs and describes the resource (device and control states). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the scripted scenario nature and the mesh vs XCUITest context.
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 a clear step format and context ('UI testing over the mesh, no XCUITest'), which implies when to use (mesh-based UI testing) and when not to (XCUITest). However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when to choose other tools, but the format and purpose are sufficiently clear.
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?
Describes overwrite behavior: 'If a file with the same name already exists, it is overwritten.' However, does not disclose error conditions (e.g., device disconnected, invalid JSON) or permissions needed, which are important for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise: two sentences for purpose, then a clear Args section. No unnecessary words. Structure front-loads key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers parameters well and basic behavior. However, lacks explanation of return value (though an output schema exists), and does not mention prerequisites like device pairing or connectivity. Nearly complete for a straightforward tool.
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?
Adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema: 'layout_json' is described as complete layout JSON with a 'name' field, and 'filename' is explained as optional with derivation logic. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Create or update a layout file on the paired device', specifying both verb and resource. Differentiates from siblings like 'get_device_layout', 'save_layout', and 'push_layout' by emphasizing the target (device's Layouts folder).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'save_layout' or 'push_layout'. The description implies it writes to a device, but lacks contextual boundaries or 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 the full burden. It states the prerequisite but does not disclose behavior on failures (e.g., unpaired device, missing chat control) or side effects. The write nature is implied but not explicitly stated.
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: one sentence for purpose, one for prerequisite, then a bullet list of args. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (return value info not needed) and tool simplicity, the description covers the prerequisite and parameter meanings. It could mention error handling or that it's a write operation, but it is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains both parameters: 'text: The message to send' and 'sender_name: Display name to send as (default 'Claude')'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Post a message into a layout's channel chat control as the LLM'. It specifies the verb 'post', the resource 'message into a layout's channel chat control', and the role 'as the LLM'. No sibling tool shares this purpose, so it is well-distinguished.
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 includes a clear prerequisite: 'Requires a paired device showing a chat control'. This guides when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternative tools like 'read_chat'.
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 explains the output is a customizable JSON config and describes parameters, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens if control_id or name not found) or output format specifics, though an output schema exists.
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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, followed by a usage tip, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
The description is fairly complete given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists). It explains the intended workflow (copy, tweak, place) and parameter behavior. Minor lack of error handling details, but overall sufficient.
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 adds significant meaning: control_id is a control type or node-id, name supports prefix match and case-insensitive matching, and omitting name returns the first example. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets a ready-to-customize JSON config for a documented control example. It distinguishes from siblings like list_control_examples (lists) and insert_example (inserts into buffer) by using specific verbs and mentioning the alternative.
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 when to use insert_example as an alternative for placing the config into the working buffer. It provides clear context for use but does not exhaustively list all sibling alternatives or when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool performs a read-only check and flags problematic bindings, which provides good behavioral insight. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify state.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and outcome with no superfluous words. It is efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could briefly mention the return format (e.g., flagged bindings), but the output schema likely covers that, so this is not a critical gap.
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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning about the tool's operation but does not need to compensate for missing parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks buffer valuePaths against fields from the last probe and flags silent data loss due to wrong paths/namespaces. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from sibling linters like 'lint_dynamic_traffic'.
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 debugging silent data loss but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_buffer' or 'check_sources'. No exclusions or context for optimal use are given.
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 implies the tool is non-destructive (linting), but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose any side effects. The output schema exists but the description does not elaborate on results.
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 sentence of 16 words, front-loaded with the action 'Lint,' and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and usage timing. It lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., buffer must exist) but is otherwise complete for a simple linting tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no param info, which is acceptable as there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (lint), the resource (working buffer), and the target (control schema). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like push_buffer and save_buffer by indicating it should be used before them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'before you push or save it,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools like validate_layout.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool does not push (non-destructive) and lists the validation checks performed. It doesn't detail error handling or return format, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for that in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences for purpose and one sentence for args. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does, the parameter input, and what it checks. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning that the layout must correspond to a device's control schema, but that is implied by 'control schema'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has only one parameter, 'layout_json', with no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds 'Complete layout JSON string', clarifying what the parameter expects. However, it does not specify that it must be a valid JSON string or mention any constraints like size limits.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'lint' and clearly states the resource 'layout against the control schema'. It explicitly lists what is checked (duplicate ids, unknown control types, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'push_layout' by emphasizing 'WITHOUT pushing'.
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 clearly states when to use this tool: to lint a layout without pushing it. This implies it should be used before pushing to validate. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tool names for different scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states what it sets (min/max, color zones) and the heuristic for orientation (higher-is-better vs worse) based on field name. Could mention potential fallback behavior when field_name doesn't match.
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?
Very concise: one sentence for purpose and a bullet-like list for parameters. Front-loaded with key action. Every word adds value, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given complexity (3 params, no annotations, output schema exists), description covers the core functionality well. Minor gap: does not explicitly state that it modifies the buffer in place, but it's implied. Output schema likely handles return values.
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%, but description provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters: control_id (id of gauge), samples_json (JSON array with example), field_name (unit/direction hint, defaults to id). This fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.
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?
Verb 'tune' with specific resource 'buffer gauge' and clear actions: sets min/max and color zones based on percentiles. Distinguishes from siblings like autowire_buffer by focusing on gauge calibration from samples.
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?
Implies usage when you have observed samples and want to auto-configure a gauge, but no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations given, but description discloses binding action, matching by name, reporting unmatched values and input controls without actions. Could mention if buffer is modified persistently, but overall strong transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first defines main action, second gives prerequisite. Front-loaded, no wasted words, well structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema exists, description covers high-level behavior and prerequisite. Mentions reporting but not output format; still sufficient for understanding main use.
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?
Single parameter 'event' with default 'broadcast' is not explained in description. With 0% schema coverage, description fails to add meaning, leaving agent uncertain about its role.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool binds unbound display controls to fields from last probe_service run, then reports remaining wiring needs. It uses specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings like probe_service.
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?
Explicitly states prerequisite 'Run probe_service first' and clarifies that input control actions require user handling ('i.e. you'). Provides clear when-to-use and differentiation.
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?
Discloses the default apply behavior and the override option, but does not mention side effects on the existing layout, whether the operation is destructive, or any required permissions. No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden but leaves gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two-line summary followed by bullet points for args. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value.
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?
The description covers all three input parameters with clear examples. However, it does not explain the output of the generation (though an output schema exists), nor mentions error conditions or prerequisites. Given the tool's simplicity, it is largely 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?
Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description provides essential meaning for all three parameters: free text examples for description, hex color and overriding behavior for accent, and default true for apply_to_buffer. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a layout theme from a vibe description or brand color and applies it to the working buffer by default. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_theme_vibes' which only list themes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context: use description for vibe text, accent for brand color, and apply_to_buffer to control application. However, lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or mention of alternatives like 'list_theme_vibes' for previewing existing themes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key effects (assigns fresh id, auto-places in free grid slot) and parameter behaviors (prefix match for name, auto-place for position). However, with no annotations, it omits prerequisites (e.g., must have an open buffer) and side effects. More context on buffer state requirements would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence for overall purpose, one for usage flow, then a clear args list. No redundant information. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the tool's action and parameters sufficiently for a user to understand how to use it. However, it does not mention the need for an existing buffer or what the tool returns (though an output schema exists). Minor gap in operational context prevents a perfect score.
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 covers all four parameters with meaningful details beyond the schema's type/default definitions: control_id (control type or node-id), name (prefix match, omit for first), tab_index (which tab), position (optional array or null, auto-place). This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: dropping a documented control example into the buffer with a fresh id and grid slot. It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_control by referencing list_control_examples as the browse step, implying this tool is for predefined examples.
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 a usage flow: 'Browse with list_control_examples, then place one here.' It implies when to use this tool (after finding an example) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like add_control for custom controls. This leaves some ambiguity but is generally helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output format and the distinction between type and docs id, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or has other behavioral traits. For a listing tool, the lack of explicit read-only designation is a minor gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, with the main purpose stated immediately. The second sentence provides critical detail about the output format and cross-tool usage, without wasted words. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists (so return values are covered elsewhere), the description is complete. It explains the key nuance about type vs. docs id, which is essential for correct usage. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). According to the scoring guide, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because there is none to add. This is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'List all available CAR-TER control types and system features' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (get_control_doc, list_control_examples, insert_example) by clarifying the output is the type token for layouts, while docs ids are kebab-case and used by other tools. This fully clarifies what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance: the returned type is for use in layouts, and warns not to use the docs id in a layout. It implies that for documentation or examples, one should use the sibling tools (get_control_doc, list_control_examples, insert_example) with the docs id. Although it doesn't explicitly state when to use the tool, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the local mode spins up an in-process relay and builds QR with LAN IP, no auth. For relay, it uses a gateway and token from env or auto-minted. This is transparent, though details on error handling (e.g., missing token) are omitted.
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 with paragraphs and a bullet list for args. Each sentence adds value, though it is slightly longer than needed. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (two modes, multiple optional params) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: network requirements, auth methods, and parameter usage. It could mention the output briefly, but the output schema compensates.
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?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description provides detailed parameter semantics: explains defaults, dependencies (e.g., url/token for relay), and sources (env, auto-mint). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Pair a device for live layout authoring.' It distinguishes between two modes (local and relay) and differentiates from sibling tools like 'disconnect' and 'show_qr' by focusing on the setup process.
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 gives explicit guidance on when to use each target: 'target='local'' for same Wi-Fi, 'target='relay'' for any network. It explains the prerequisites (same Wi-Fi, app allowing ws://) and alternatives like auto-minting tokens. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool.
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 mentions the output is 'compact JSON' and returned 'in ONE call', hinting at efficiency. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits like read-only nature, caching, latency, or side effects. The description adequately describes the return structure but could add more behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear one-line summary, followed by output format details and parameter documentation in a bullet-like style. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to detail return values but still summarizes the output shape. For a catalog tool with two optional parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and output comprehensively, leaving no 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%, but the description fully explains both parameters: 'types' as an optional filter list of control types/node-ids, and 'include_theme' as including per-control theme override fields. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal type and default information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a machine-readable schema for every placeable control in one call, specifies the output format (compact JSON keyed by control type), and distinguishes from siblings like get_control_doc. The verb 'returns' and resource 'control catalog' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises to prefer this over reading individual control docs when authoring, providing a clear use case. It implies not to use it for detailed individual control documentation, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives beyond the sibling list. Still, the guidance is clear and context-rich.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses what is returned (name, filename, tabs, accent color) and the prerequisite. It does not mention error conditions or edge cases, but for a read-only list operation this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated succinctly.
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?
With an output schema and clear return description, this is fairly complete for a list tool. Could have briefly contrasted with sibling 'list_sample_layouts', but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by detailing the return fields, which compensates for the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'layout files stored on the paired device'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_device_layout' (specific layout) and 'list_sample_layouts' (built-in samples).
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 specifies a prerequisite: the device must be connected and paired via 'connect'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.
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?
The description outlines the main behavior: send control, user edits via phone, then return the shaped control. It mentions the side effect of add_to_buffer and the requirement for a live-edit session. However, it does not cover error handling, timeout behavior, or what happens if the user cancels. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a reasonable job.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear opening statement, a memorable guiding phrase, a note on prerequisites, and a bulleted Args list. Every sentence contributes value, and the critical info is front-loaded.
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?
The description explains the tool's flow, prerequisites, and side effects well. It notes that the output is the shaped control, but does not detail the output format; however, the presence of an output schema (confirmed in context) mitigates this. Some missing details (e.g., timeout behavior when exceeded) keep it from perfect completeness.
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?
Since input schema has 0% description coverage, the description provides essential parameter details: control_json with an example, timeout with default, add_to_buffer explaining its effect, and tab_index context. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, making it easy for an agent to understand how to use each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to hand off a control to a phone for human customization via live preview and field editor, then read back the result. It uses specific verbs ('hand', 'customize', 'read back') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_control or update_control by emphasizing the interactive human role.
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: when you want the user to manually customize a control. It includes a prerequisite ('requires a paired device in a live-edit session') and a mantra ('shape it on glass, wire it on the model'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description implies a read-only operation by stating it is for inspection. It clearly communicates the tool's behavior without contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action, no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 0 parameters and an output schema, the description fully explains what it does and why, making it complete.
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?
No parameters exist, so the description cannot add parameter meaning. Baseline 4 for 0 parameters is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Return) and resource (full JSON of the working buffer), with specific usage (inspection or manual save). It distinguishes from sibling tools like save_buffer and preview_buffer.
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?
Implies usage context (inspection or manual save) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like preview_buffer or when not to use. Still provides sufficient guidance for a simple tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a read operation and returns specific status fields, which is sufficient for this simple 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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with purpose and contains no excess words. Highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description fully explains the tool's behavior and return values, making it complete.
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?
No parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per rubric, 0 params yields baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads the relay connection status and specifies what it returns (connected, channel/account, events). It differentiates from sibling tools like connect/disconnect by being read-only.
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 for checking status, but does not explicitly state when to use vs siblings like connect or disconnect. However, the context and name make it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description adequately indicates a read-only operation with no side effects. It does not specify cost or authorization, but for a simple schema retrieval, transparency is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and its purpose. No additional details are needed.
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 no parameters, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 params.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the layout JSON structure reference with fields and types, distinguishing it from siblings that retrieve actual layouts or control data.
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 context is clear: this tool is for obtaining the schema definition, not a concrete layout. Although no explicit alternatives are given, the name and description suffice to differentiate from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so description carries full burden. It explains the mapping logic (numbers->gauges, etc.) and default behavior (into_buffer). Could mention limitations but is fairly transparent.
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?
Efficiently structured with a lead sentence, mapping paragraph, and bullet list. No redundant text, though slightly long.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and the tool is complex, the description adequately covers how to obtain input, the inference rules, and buffer behavior. Complete for its purpose.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides comprehensive parameter explanations in the Args section, adding context for each parameter beyond schema defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'infer' and resource 'first-draft layout from a real JSON payload'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on automatic inference from a payload sample.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context on when to use (when you have a JSON payload) and suggests using 'probe_service' to capture a sample. However, it lacks explicit exclusion statements for alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully explains the tool's effect: it emits data that drives synced controls, moving gauges and filling sparklines. It also clarifies it acts 'as if from the service' and is for testing, revealing the simulation nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences define the tool's purpose and use case, followed by clear parameter descriptions. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose, use case, and parameters adequately. Since an output schema exists, the absence of return value explanation is acceptable. Minor missing guidance on prerequisites or side effects (e.g., no mention of requiring a connection or channel state).
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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides meaningful details: payload_json is described with a concrete example and purpose ('the frame to emit'), and event is explained with its default value. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool emits a data frame as if from the service, for live demo/no-backend testing. The verb 'emit' and resource 'data frame onto the channel' are specific, and the purpose is distinct from siblings like set_control_value or say_in_chat.
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 indicates usage for 'live demo / no-backend testing', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, leaving the guidance slightly implicit.
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?
Given no annotations, the description discloses blocking behavior and timeout. It could mention whether the operation is safe or idempotent, but the basic behavioral traits are covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences plus an argument list, front-loaded with purpose. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers behavior, usage, and parameters completely. No additional information needed.
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 explains the timeout parameter as 'Max seconds to wait (default: 30)', adding meaning beyond the schema's default value. With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('wait') and the resource ('device to pair after scanning the QR code'). It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying the blocking behavior until a device joins the editing channel, which is unique among the listed sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use after scanning QR code. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient for a simple wait operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation ('Read') and explains the effect of the 'full' parameter (summary vs complete JSON). No destructive or side effects are mentioned, but for a read tool nothing more is needed. The description adds value beyond the schema, which had 0% coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for context, one for parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no filler. The key information is front-loaded immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a single boolean parameter and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what the parameter does. No additional details about return values are needed because the output schema provides that.
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 fully compensates for 0% schema coverage by explicitly explaining the sole parameter 'full': true returns complete layout JSON, false (default) returns summary. This is clear, actionable, and adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads the live device layout, using a specific verb-resource pair ('Read the layout'). It distinguishes itself from sibling write tools like push_layout and other read tools like get_sample_layout by focusing on the current live state. The phrase 'Lets you SEE what's on the phone before editing' reinforces the core purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: use this tool to inspect the live layout before editing. It implies not to push blindlessly, indirectly guiding the agent to use get_device_layout before mutation tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, which would elevate the score to 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosure. It explains the tool listens to the live mesh for a configurable duration and returns the schema, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state whether it is nondestructive or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear overview followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema likely describes the return format, the description appropriately focuses on the tool's operation and purpose. It covers what is discovered and how the results can be used, making it complete for the tool's complexity.
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 meaning beyond the input schema: it explains 'seconds' as listening duration (default 8) and 'event' as the mesh event to sniff (default 'broadcast'). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool listens to the live mesh and reports the service's data schema, specifying events, fields, types, ranges, and examples. It distinguishes itself by noting that other sibling tools (autowire_buffer, lint_against_traffic, infer_layout) can use the discovered data, making its purpose unique.
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 advises running this tool first before using related tools like autowire_buffer, lint_against_traffic, and infer_layout, providing clear usage context. While it doesn't specify when not to use it, the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description fully discloses behavioral traits: shows catalog version/freshness/fingerprint, installed-vs-latest carterkit, phone app version when paired, and alignment verdict. Also explains caching behavior and refresh action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is well-structured with clear purpose, explanation of sources, usage guidance, and argument. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema and the description explains return values conceptually, the description is complete. It covers usage context, parameter, and behavioral output without missing critical information.
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 single parameter 'refresh' is described in detail in the description: 'Force a fresh fetch of the website catalog + PyPI version, bypassing the local cache.' This compensates for 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool reports on MCP truth sources and flags drift, using specific verbs 'report' and 'flag' with distinct resources (catalog, carterkit, phone app). No sibling tool has similar purpose.
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?
Explicitly says when to use: 'at the start of a session' and 'whenever a pushed layout behaves unexpectedly'. Does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but given sibling list, no other tool serves this diagnostic role.
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?
Describes the tool as a read operation with no destructive effects, and adds context about older apps dropping controls. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not cover rate limits or authentication needs, but the tool's simplicity reduces the need.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple read tool with output schema present; description covers purpose, usage scenario, and related sibling. Complete for 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?
No parameters, so baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter info as the schema is already complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool reads the device's app version, build, and protocol version. Differentiates from siblings like check_sources and get_connection_status.
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?
Explicitly says to use for confirming app compatibility and references check_sources for full drift verdict, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
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?
Lacks annotations, so description carries full burden. It details the checks performed (missing events, payload issues, rendering failures) and a prerequisite (run probe_service). Does not explicitly state it's read-only, but the nature of linting implies no mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences plus a short comparative phrase. Every sentence earns its place: first defines scope, second gives prerequisite, third provides sibling context. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and presence of output schema, the description covers purpose, usage instructions, and behavioral details. It is complete for this 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?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. Description adds nothing about parameters, but none needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool checks buffer dynamic= groups against probe broadcasts, listing specific issues (missing events, missing children, bad injected children). Distinguishes itself by calling out 'dynamic-content counterpart' to sibling lint_against_traffic.
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?
Explicitly instructs to run probe_service first, and identifies as the dynamic-content counterpart to lint_against_traffic, telling the agent exactly when to use this tool versus its sibling.
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:

[![carter-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Mariner10/carter-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Mariner10/carter-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![carter-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Mariner10/carter-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Mariner10/carter-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/Mariner10/carter-mcp'

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