AbleSign MCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. Media upload/replacement have separate initiate and complete steps. Screen playlist operations (save, add, update) are clearly differentiated. No ambiguity between tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_media_files, create_web_app, delete_screen). Verbs like list, create, get, update, delete, initiate, complete, register are used predictably.
Tool Count2/5
44 tools is excessive for a single server, far exceeding the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. Many operations could be consolidated or split into separate servers.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers all major entities (media, web apps, screens, screen groups, folders, workspaces) with full CRUD and specialized operations like upload flows and playlist management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no user management beyond workspace users), but core workflows are well-supported.
Average 2.9/5 across 44 of 44 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- 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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, idempotency, return values, or side effects. The low transparency fails to compensate for the missing annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but it is under-specified. Conciseness is not beneficial when essential details are missing, similar to the 'Process' calibration example.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and the presence of sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It provides no parameter guidance, usage context, or behavioral information, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not elaborate on the parameters (title, description). With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning, but it provides no information about parameter roles, constraints, or valid values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'screen group', making the purpose explicit. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling 'create' tools or explain what a screen group is, which prevents a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_screen_group, or any prerequisites. The description gives no context about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any side effects, authentication needs, or whether it is read-only. The description adds no transparency beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise but at the expense of informativeness. It is a single sentence that merely restates the tool name, which is insufficient. Conciseness should not sacrifice necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context for distinguishing from sibling tools and provides no behavioral or usage guidance. Given the tool's simplicity and the many sibling tools, the description is incomplete for effective agent decision-making.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the workspace_id parameter or its source. The description adds no value beyond what the schema indicates (a required integer), leaving the agent without context for parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Get' and resource 'workspace details,' which is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_workspaces or update_workspace. It directly conveys what the tool does.
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. For example, it does not clarify that get_workspace retrieves a single workspace by ID, while list_workspaces returns all workspaces. This omission hinders tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It omits pagination (despite having offset/limit params), sorting, recursion depth, and error handling. The phrase 'optionally within a parent folder' is vague.
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?
The description is very concise, but it sacrifices necessary details. It is one sentence, which is brief but insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 undocumented parameters and no behavioral details, the description is incomplete. The output schema may help, but the description fails to provide enough context for correct usage.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to parameters like limit, offset, sort_by, or title beyond the schema. Only folder_id is vaguely implied by 'within a parent folder'.
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 lists media folders with an optional parent filter. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_folder or list_media_files.
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 get_folder for a single folder or list_media_files for files.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. However, it simply says 'Get a media folder' with no disclosure of idempotency, side effects, error handling (e.g., if folder_id is invalid), or authentication needs. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at 4 words, with no extraneous content. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification. Every word is necessary, but more detail would be beneficial, making it barely adequate for a tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (not shown) but the description does not mention return values, error cases, or example usage. Combined with a simple parameter set, the description lacks completeness for an agent to reliably use the tool without additional context.
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 parameter 'folder_id' with an integer type but no description. The tool description does not explain what 'folder_id' represents (e.g., the unique identifier) or any constraints (e.g., must exist). With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no supplementary meaning beyond the parameter name.
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 'Get a media folder' specifies a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('media folder'), matching the tool name. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'list_folders' (which lists folders) or 'get_media_file' (which gets a file). The purpose is clear but minimal, not achieving full distinctiveness.
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. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it. For example, it does not clarify that this tool retrieves a single folder by ID, while 'list_folders' retrieves multiple folders.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication requirements, or side effects. The minimal description fails to inform the agent about expected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but overly minimal. It lacks structure and important details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description does not hint at what the output includes or how it differs from related tools like get_screen_group_playlist or list_screen_groups. It is incomplete for effective use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the group_id parameter beyond what is in the schema title. It does not explain the parameter's role or format, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb 'Get' and resource 'screen group details', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_screen_groups or update_screen_group. However, it is vague about what specific 'details' are included.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_screen_groups (which lists groups) or get_screen_group_playlist (which gets playlist details for a group). The description lacks context for tool selection.
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 present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but does not disclose authorization needs, rate limits, or whether the call is idempotent. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.
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?
The description is very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices necessary detail. While brevity is valued, the description lacks sufficient information to be fully useful, earning an average score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it omits context about the relationship to siblings and the scope of 'playlist and settings'. For a tool with a single parameter, the description should be more complete to guide the agent.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter (screen_id), the description does not explain what the parameter represents or how to obtain it. The schema provides a title and type, but no further context. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('a screen's playlist and settings'). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'get_screen' (which likely returns screen metadata) and 'get_screen_group_playlist' (for groups). The verb and resource are specific, but no further distinction is made.
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 (e.g., 'get_screen', 'save_screen_playlist'). The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool should be chosen over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses mutation and signed URL, but omits behavioral traits like idempotency, file lock duration, error states, or whether multiple calls are allowed. For a 0% schema coverage tool, more disclosure is needed.
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?
Single sentence, no waste. However, underspecification makes it less effective. Conciseness is good but at the cost of necessary detail.
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?
Even with an output schema (not shown), the description lacks context for a multi-step operation. It does not mention the complementary tool 'complete_media_replacement', nor constraints like file size limits or authentication needs. Incomplete for the complexity implied.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must elaborate on parameters. It does not explain any parameter beyond their names (e.g., 'size' unit, 'filename' format, 'mime_type' examples). The agent must guess or rely on external knowledge.
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 ('start replacing a media file') and the output ('return a signed PUT URL'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_media_file' by implying a multi-step process, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'initiate_media_upload' or 'complete_media_replacement'.
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 siblings. Missing prerequisites (e.g., existing media file), post-conditions (e.g., must call 'complete_media_replacement'), or constraints (e.g., file lock during replacement). The agent has to infer the workflow 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Partially update a screen group.' It does not disclose what fields can be updated, required permissions, error behaviors (e.g., if group_id not found), or whether changes are reversible. The presence of an output schema is not mentioned.
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?
The description is extremely concise—one sentence—but at the cost of omitting necessary information. While it is not verbose, it under-specifies the tool's behavior and parameters for an effective agent usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 params, one a generic object) and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention how the 'changes' object should be structured, return format (despite output schema existing), or side effects. A mutation tool requires more contextual detail.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), and the description adds no meaning for the two parameters. The 'changes' object is left completely undocumented; the agent has no clue what keys or values are allowed. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema explanations.
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 (update) and resource (screen group), and includes 'partially' to indicate it's a partial update, distinguishing it from a full replacement. However, it does not differentiate from other update tools (e.g., update_workspace) beyond the resource name.
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 vs. alternatives (e.g., creating a new screen group, deleting, or using other update tools). The description implicitly ties usage to screen groups but offers no context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description must disclose behavior. It only says 'partially update', omitting details like idempotency, side effects, or handling of the 'changes' object structure.
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?
Extremely concise at one sentence, but this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It is not adequately front-loaded with critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, low schema coverage, and a nested parameter, the description is insufficient. It does not compensate for missing structured metadata.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Description adds no extra meaning beyond parameter names. The 'changes' object with additionalProperties is left completely unspecified.
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?
Description clearly states it partially updates a workspace, distinguishing it from create/delete/get workspace tools. However, it doesn't specify what attributes of a workspace can be updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like full update or other workspace operations. The context of 'partial update' is implied but not explicitly contrasted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, filtering, or sorting. The description only says 'List,' implying read-only but not explicitly, and fails to mention the presence of parameters like limit, offset, sort_by, or from_date that affect behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief (4 words), which is concise but under-specified. It lacks essential details such as parameter hints or usage context. While front-loaded, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, making it less helpful than a slightly longer but more informative description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 6 optional parameters and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to convey that the tool supports pagination, filtering by tags/title/date, sorting, or the structure of the response. The agent lacks critical information to use the tool correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameters are described in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining any of the 6 parameters (tags, limit, title, offset, sort_by, from_date) or their semantics, leaving the agent with no information beyond parameter names.
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 'List AbleSign web apps,' which is a specific verb (List) and resource (AbleSign web apps). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workspaces, list_screens, etc., which list different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It only says 'permanently delete,' hinting at irreversibility, but omits critical behavior like whether members or screens are also deleted, or any required permissions.
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, direct sentence with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from additional structure (e.g., bullet points) to convey more information without losing 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 the tool's simplicity, key context is missing: side effects on related entities (e.g., screens in the group), error conditions, and specific permissions. The existence of an output schema is noted but its content is unknown.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for the 'group_id' parameter beyond what the name implies. The parameter's format, constraints, or role are entirely unspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('permanently delete') and resource ('screen group'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling delete tools like 'delete_screen' or 'delete_media_file'.
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, nor any prerequisites or conditions (e.g., whether the group must exist or if any screens are affected). The description is purely definitional.
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 behaviors. It only mentions listing and filters; lacks details on pagination, sorting, or that it's a read-only operation. Insufficient for an unannotated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise, but lacks structure and completeness. Every word earns its place, but more information could be included without excessive length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It covers filtering but omits pagination (limit/offset) and sorting behavior. Output schema exists but does not compensate for missing behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and description adds meaning for three parameters (orientations, online_status, screen_tags) by explaining they accept comma-separated values. However, limit, title, offset, and sort_by remain unexplained.
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?
Description states it lists screens and mentions comma-separated orientation, online-status, or tag filters. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like list_screen_groups.
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., get_screen for a single screen). Description only hints at filter options but does not provide context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'rename', which signals mutation, but omits effects on file paths, permission requirements, reversibility, or response details. The existing 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence front-loaded with the verb 'rename'. However, it is too brief, sacrificing essential context that could help the agent. A balance between conciseness and informativeness is missing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate for a rename operation but incomplete for an agent without annotations. It lacks behavioral details, usage guidance, and parameter clarification, making it insufficient for confident correct invocation in complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds no extra meaning beyond parameter names. 'title' and 'folder_id' are reasonably self-explanatory from names and types, yet the description could clarify constraints or usage (e.g., title uniqueness, folder_id source). It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'rename' and the resource 'media folder', leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also modify folders (e.g., delete_folder), which is a missed opportunity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_media_file or delete_folder. The description implies usage for renaming but offers no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool creates a folder, with no details on side effects, idempotency, authentication requirements, or return 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?
The single sentence is concise, but it lacks sufficient detail to cover all necessary dimensions. While not verbose, it is under-informative for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description omits important context such as what the output schema contains, potential error conditions, or the need for parent folder existence. It is incomplete for a create operation with an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It adds only 'optionally under a parent', restating the schema. No explanation of title constraints, format, or the meaning of parent_folder_id is given.
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 'Create' and the resource 'media folder', with an optional parent hint. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like update_folder or delete_folder.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the need for a parent folder to exist, 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'permanently delete' implying irreversibility, but lacks details on authorization requirements, cascading effects, or whether the file must be unused before deletion.
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, clear sentence that communicates the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could add a brief note on irreversibility without losing conciseness.
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 destructive nature and the presence of an output schema (covering return values), the description is somewhat adequate but fails to mention key context like the permanent effect or necessary preconditions for deletion.
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 for the single parameter 'media_file_id'. The description adds no meaning about what the parameter represents, format, or constraints, leaving the agent without guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (media file), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_media_file or list_media_files. The word 'permanently' adds emphasis but could be more specific about irreversible deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_media_file or other delete tools. Agents receive no context about prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate 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?
The description says 'permanently delete' indicating irreversibility, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or associated data handling.
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?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but lacks necessary detail; it is too minimal to be fully effective.
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 low complexity and having an output schema, the description omits usage, behavioral, and parameter context, making it incomplete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the web_app_id parameter; it does not explain what it is or how to obtain it.
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 'delete' and the resource 'web app', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create or update web app.
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 (e.g., archiving, soft delete), nor any prerequisites or conditions like ownership.
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 the description bears full burden. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any authentication requirements or side effects. The brief description offers no behavioral context beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be slightly expanded with useful context without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks completeness for agent use. It does not explain when to invoke this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from similar tools. The minimal text leaves gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the only parameter 'web_app_id'. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description should clarify its purpose (e.g., 'The unique identifier of the web app to retrieve').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('web app details'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_web_apps' which lists all, or 'create_web_app' which creates. However, it could be more specific about what 'details' includes.
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. There is no mention of the required 'web_app_id' to retrieve a specific item compared to listing all web apps with 'list_web_apps'.
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 only says 'replace entire playlist' but omits behavioral details such as destructive effects, permissions required, or return value.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence, but too minimal to add value beyond the name. Could include more details without becoming verbose.
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?
Lacks essential context for a tool with a nested object parameter and no schema description. Does not address output schema or side effects.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%; description does not explain any parameters. The 'playlist' object with additionalProperties is left completely undefined.
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 'Replace a screen group's entire playlist,' using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from partial-update siblings like add_screen_group_playlist_items.
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., add or update items). Does not indicate prerequisites or typical use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states 'partially update' but does not explain what 'partial' entails—whether only provided fields are updated, how nested objects are merged, or the idempotency of the operation. Missing details on permissions, side effects, and error cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (single sentence, no fluff), but it is under-specified. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of necessary detail. A minimal viable description could still include usage context.
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 and nested objects, the description does not help the agent understand input requirements or behavior. It omits information on valid fields for 'changes,' update semantics, and interaction with sibling tools. For a tool with 3 required params and no schema coverage, this is insufficient.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter-level information. The 'changes' parameter is an open object with additionalProperties: true, but the description gives no hints about valid fields or structure. The agent has no guidance beyond parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Partially update one screen group playlist item,' which clearly specifies the verb (update), resource (screen group playlist item), and scope (partially, indicating patch behavior). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_screen_group_playlist_items' and 'update_screen_playlist_item' by specifying the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., 'add_screen_group_playlist_items') would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states completion action but does not disclose any behavioral traits like idempotency, failure states, or required authentication. Minimal transparency.
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?
Single sentence, no redundant words. However, it may be too brief for clarity; still efficient.
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?
Tool has 1 parameter, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain the upload_id, output, or prerequisites. Incomplete for a mutation tool with no other context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%; the parameter 'upload_id' is not explained in the description. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool completes a replacement after bytes are uploaded. It uses specific verb 'finish' and resource 'replacement', but does not distinguish from sibling 'complete_media_upload', which is similar.
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 after bytes have been PUT to a signed URL, providing a precondition. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives like complete_media_upload.
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, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting defaults, or the fact that it is a read-only 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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has four parameters and an output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits details on pagination, filtering, and the structure of the returned list.
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 description does not explain any of the four parameters (limit, offset, sort_by, title). With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no value beyond the parameter names.
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 (list), the resource (screen groups), and the scope (active workspace). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_screen_group and create_screen_group.
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, nor are any preconditions 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?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the basic function (listing users) and omits key behavioral traits such as whether results are paginated, required permissions, or error behavior when the workspace does not exist.
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, consisting of a single sentence that directly conveys the purpose. However, it lacks any structural elements (e.g., bullet points or sections) that could enhance readability, though for a simple tool this minimalism is acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description could afford to be brief. Nevertheless, it fails to cover necessary context such as the range of users returned (all users? only active?), link to the workspace, or any usage constraints, making it incomplete for reliable agent invocation.
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 one required parameter (workspace_id) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameter. The description does not explain what workspace_id represents or how to obtain it, leaving the agent with no guidance 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 (list) and resource (users assigned to a workspace), which directly corresponds to the tool's name. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_workspaces or get_workspace, as no other sibling lists workspace users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, which is insufficient given the number of sibling tools (e.g., list_workspaces, get_screen_group_members) that could confuse an AI agent.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions item count constraint. It does not disclose behavior for 'position' parameter, error handling for invalid input, or what happens if more than 50 items are provided.
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?
The description is very concise at one sentence, but it lacks structure such as sections or bullet points. It could include more detail without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, a brief description, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves significant gaps about parameter formats and behavioral details. It is insufficient for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema. It fails to explain the 'items' array format, the 'group_id' purpose, or how 'position' affects placement.
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', the resource 'screen group playlist', and a numeric constraint '1-50 items', making it distinct from sibling tools like 'add_screen_playlist_items'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'add_screen_playlist_items' or other playlist manipulation tools. The agent must infer context from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The term 'get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm lack of side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. For a simple retrieval, the transparency is minimal.
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 sentence, which is appropriately concise for a simple GET tool. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple structure and existence of an output schema, the description is still incomplete. It lacks any usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, or context about how this tool relates to siblings like get_screen_playlist. The summary is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully sufficient for correct agent selection.
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 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'screen_id', and the tool description does not provide any additional meaning about this parameter. It is unclear what values are expected (e.g., integer ID format, constraints). An output schema exists but does not inform parameter semantics.
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 'Get complete details for a screen' clearly specifies the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_screens (which lists screens) and update_screen (which modifies). The verb 'get' and the scope 'complete details' make the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where a different tool (e.g., list_screens, get_screen_playlist) would be more appropriate. The sentence is too terse to convey usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it lists media files and mentions comma-separated filters, but does not disclose pagination behavior (offset/limit), default sorting, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a read operation, this is a significant gap.
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 very concise: one sentence plus a note. It front-loads the core purpose. While efficient, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness, e.g., mentioning common use cases.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return structure (despite having an output schema), pagination, or filtering semantics beyond the comma-separated note. An agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds that multi-value format/orientation filters are comma-separated, which partially explains two of nine parameters. The remaining seven parameters (tags, limit, title, offset, sort_by, folder_id, from_date) have no semantic explanation, forcing the agent to rely solely on parameter names.
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 'media files'. It distinguishes from sibling list tools (list_web_apps, etc.) by specifying the resource. The additional note on filter formatting is helpful.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_media_file or other list tools. The description does not provide context-criteria or exclusions, making it ambiguous when the agent should select 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 are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It omits critical details such as whether the tool is idempotent, what occurs on success (e.g., returns a screen ID), or error handling for invalid codes.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it is under-specified. It earns a 3 as it is not verbose, but lacks necessary details that would justify a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description does not cover parameter explanations or behavioral context. Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, required fields), the description is insufficient for an agent to reliably use the tool without additional inference.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should elaborate on parameters. It only hints at 'registration_code' by mentioning 'six-character device pairing code', but fails to explain 'title', 'description', or 'orientation'. This leaves agents guessing about required input.
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 specifies the action 'register a screen' and the unique condition 'using its six-character device pairing code'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_screen, update_screen, or delete_screen, 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. Without context, an agent might not know if a pairing code is already required or what happens if registration fails.
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 present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Partially update', which implies a PATCH-like behavior (non-destructive partial changes), but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as permissions required, idempotency, side effects, error handling, or constraints. The description provides minimal transparency beyond the mutation 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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence. It leads with the verb and resource ('Partially update a screen'), then adds the critical detail about the API field names. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no fluff or repetition.
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 that the tool has an output schema (per context signals) and only two parameters, the description is partially adequate. However, the changes object is complex (nested object with additionalProperties) and the description provides minimal guidance on its contents. With an output schema, return values are covered, but the input semantics remain underdescribed. A more complete description would list common updatable fields or note the API reference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely mentions 'using AbleSign API field names in `changes`', but does not explain what valid fields are, the structure of the changes object, or any constraints. The schema only specifies additionalProperties true, so the description adds little meaning beyond that. No examples or lists of common fields are given.
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 does a partial update of a screen, with the verb 'update' and resource 'screen'. It adds specificity by mentioning 'AbleSign API field names', distinguishing the expected input format. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools like update_screen_group, but the resource name itself provides sufficient distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool recommendations are provided. The description only states what the tool does, not the context for its appropriate 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'partially update' and 'without reordering' but fails to disclose side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or behavior when invalid data is provided.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is meaningful with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and moderate complexity, the description is too sparse. It lacks information on return values, permissible change fields, and error conditions, forcing reliance on undocumented schema.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the three parameters (screen_id, item_id, changes) at all. The 'changes' object accepts arbitrary properties with no constraints or examples, leaving the agent guessing.
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 (partially update), the resource (screen playlist item), and a key behavioral nuance (without reordering). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_screen_playlist_items or save_screen_playlist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_screen_group_playlist_item or add_screen_playlist_items. No context about prerequisites or conditions is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, permissions, or persistence, but it only states the basic function. It does not explain what happens upon creation (e.g., is it saved, what is the response) or any authorization requirements. This is insufficient for an AI agent.
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 efficient sentence that communicates the core action immediately. It avoids redundant information, earning its place. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key parameter details without losing 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 an output schema existing, the description does not provide essential context such as the mutual exclusivity of url and html, the required title, or any prerequisites like workspace membership. The tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate but does not fully address these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning by indicating that 'url' and 'html' are alternative sources, which is not clear from the schema alone. However, it fails to mention the required 'title' parameter or explain the 'description' parameter. With 0% schema coverage, this partial explanation is helpful but incomplete.
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 ('Create a web app') and the two source options ('from either a URL or raw HTML'). It distinguishes this creation tool from its siblings like 'update_web_app' and 'delete_web_app' by focusing on creation. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 other tools like 'update_web_app' or 'list_web_apps'. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a workspace, or that only one of url/html should be provided. The description lacks decision-making context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the color parameter format and gives no information about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error handling. This is insufficient for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description is brief, it does not cover when to use this tool, required permissions, or expected behavior for required fields beyond the schema. An output schema exists, so return details are adequately handled elsewhere, but the description lacks broader context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for the 'color' parameter (specifying #RRGGBB format), which goes beyond the schema. However, the 'title' and 'description' parameters receive no additional clarification, and schema coverage is 0% per context.
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: 'Create a workspace.' It also provides a specific detail about the color parameter format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create other entities (e.g., create_web_app, create_folder, create_screen_group).
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 or any prerequisites. The description does not mention any context for invocation or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'Get', implying read-only, but lacks details about behavior (e.g., error handling, permissions, or response structure beyond the existing output schema).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence, but it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so moderately complete. However, missing usage context and parameter details make it merely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameter 'group_id' beyond its name. It adds no additional meaning or constraints (e.g., format, source).
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 'Get' and the resource 'screen group's playlist', distinguishing it from sibling tools like save_screen_group_playlist (write) and get_screen_playlist (different entity).
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., get_screen_playlist for screens) or when to use save_screen_group_playlist for modifications. Context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses returning a signed PUT URL and hints at a multi-step flow, but omits side effects (e.g., whether a media record is created), idempotency, 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?
One sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with action and outcome. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is too brief. It doesn't explain the upload flow sequence, how the signed URL is used, or what the output schema contains. Leaves agent with significant gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds zero parameter details. Crucial parameters like 'size', 'mime_type', and 'folder_id' are not explained; only the term 'filename' is implicit from the description.
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 initiates a three-step upload flow and returns a signed PUT URL, with a specific verb 'Start' and resource 'AbleSign's three-step upload flow', distinguishing it from siblings like complete_media_upload.
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 (e.g., complete_media_upload, initiate_media_replacement), nor prerequisites or workflow context. The description only mentions a three-step flow without explaining steps.
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?
Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like overwriting entire playlist and permission needs. It only says 'Replace...entire playlist,' lacking detail on 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 very concise with two short sentences, front-loading the purpose with no extra fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (nested object as parameter) and lack of output schema details, the description is too brief to be complete. It omits parameter constraints and behavioral context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain the 'playlist' object structure or 'screen_id' usage.
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 ('Replace') and the target resource ('a screen's entire playlist'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'add_screen_playlist_items' and 'get_screen_playlist'.
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 replacement by saying 'All desired items must be included,' but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or mention prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions item count and types and the position parameter implies ordering, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., appending vs. replacing), validation behavior, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness given the complexity of the items parameter.
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, the description lacks sufficient detail to fully understand the behavior, especially for the items array which is loosely typed. It does not help the agent differentiate from sibling tools that also involve playlist items.
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 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds that items are 'media-file or web-app items' but does not explain the required fields within the objects (additionalProperties true). Screen_id and position are not described 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 'Add', the resource 'items to a screen playlist', and specifies constraints (1-50, media-file or web-app). It distinguishes from sibling tools like save_screen_playlist and update_screen_playlist_item by implying batch addition.
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 adding multiple items at once but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., save_screen_playlist for full replacement) or provide when-not 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?
The description says 'permanently delete' indicating irreversibility, but does not disclose side effects on contained files, auth requirements, or other behavioral traits beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence without unnecessary words, but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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, but given the lack of annotations and details about effects on folder contents or constraints, it is somewhat incomplete for a non-trivial delete operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter folder_id is not described in the schema; the tool description does not explicitly clarify its meaning, though it is implicit from context.
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 'delete' and the resource 'media folder', distinguishing it from siblings like update_folder or get_folder.
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 whether to delete files first or prerequisites like permissions.
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?
Description mentions permanence, indicating irreversibility. However, with no annotations, it could elaborate on consequences, dependencies, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no filler, concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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 delete operation, basic purpose is covered. Lacks details on return value (output schema exists) and any side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Description does not mention the single parameter 'screen_id'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema 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?
Description clearly states 'Permanently delete a screen.' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes well from siblings like delete_media_file, delete_web_app, etc.
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, prerequisites, or alternatives. Siblings provide similar delete operations but no comparative 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?
The description mentions 'partial update' suggesting non-destructive behavior, but with no annotations, it fails to disclose other traits like permission requirements, idempotency, or how unspecified fields are handled. The behavioral profile is incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core function. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool but could benefit from a second sentence clarifying scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the nested 'changes' parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on valid properties, constraints, and behavioral context that the agent needs to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only loosely groups 'metadata, dates, or tags' as valid change targets. It does not enumerate allowed keys or provide structure for the 'changes' object, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.
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 updates media metadata, dates, or tags, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_media_file and upload/replacement tools, establishing a unique 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 partial updates but provides no explicit context on when to use, prerequisites, or alternatives. Without guidance on data validation or required existence of the media file, the agent must infer usage from 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'partially update' and lists some updatable fields but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, authorization requirements, side effects, or whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset.
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 sentence with 14 words, efficient and front-loaded. However, brevity sacrifices necessary detail for clarity and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a nested object parameter and an output schema (not described), the description lacks details on return values and the expected format of the 'changes' object. It does not adequately complete the tool's semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description lists some fields (metadata, URL, schedule, zoom, tags) but does not explain the structure of the 'changes' object or provide details on parameter formats. It adds modest value over the schema but insufficiently compensates for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Partially update') and identifies the resource ('a web app'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_web_app and delete_web_app.
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 updating a web app but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_web_app or delete_web_app. No when-not conditions or prerequisite details 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 bears full burden. It states it returns details and a signed URL, implying a read operation, but does not disclose expiration of the URL, authentication needs, or any side effects. This is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence covering the core purpose without extraneous words. It is concise and every word earns its place.
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 parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the basics. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral subtleties, making it moderately complete for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly mention the media_file_id parameter, but the parameter name is self-explanatory and the tool's single input is obvious. The description adds minimal value 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 'Get media details and a signed download URL' clearly specifies the verb (get) and resource (media file details and URL), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_media_file or delete_media_file which modify or remove files.
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 guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_media_files, nor does it specify prerequisites or context such as needing the media_file_id.
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; description is minimal but accurate for a read-only operation. It does not disclose potential side effects or permissions, but for a simple list operation, the description is adequate.
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 concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequately complete. However, it could benefit from mentioning that the return is a list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'group_id' parameter beyond what the schema provides (type integer). The purpose is clear from context, but the description adds no value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'screens assigned to a screen group', distinguishing it from siblings like 'set_screen_group_members' which is a write operation and 'list_screens' which lists all screens.
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 'set_screen_group_members' or 'list_screens'. The description only states what it does without 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?
The description discloses the permanent destructive nature and the precondition (non-default, empty) but does not elaborate on what happens if the precondition is not met, or other behavioral details. Given no annotations, this is adequate 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words, efficiently conveying the 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 delete tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the core action and key precondition. However, it omits details about error responses or confirmation, but this is acceptable given the low complexity.
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 description adds no information about the workspace_id parameter beyond what the input schema already provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter meaning entirely to the agent to infer from the name.
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 ('permanently delete') and the resource ('workspace'), and specifies conditions ('non-default, empty workspace'), distinguishing it from other delete operations on different resources and from workspace update/get/create.
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 context on when to use (non-default, empty workspace), implying when not to use (default or non-empty), but does not explicitly state alternatives or error conditions.
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 discloses that the tool replaces (overwrites) the membership and enforces a limit of 100 screen IDs. However, it does not mention side effects, error conditions, or transactionality.
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?
One sentence clearly conveys the purpose and a key constraint. No extraneous information. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (not shown) and only two simple parameters, the description covers the essential behavior. It lacks mention of prerequisites or validation, but is nearly complete for this use case.
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%, so the description must add meaning. It implies group_id identifies the group and screen_ids are the new member IDs, with a cap of 100. This adds marginal value over the schema's type-only definitions.
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 (replace), the resource (screen group's membership), and a constraint (up to 100 screen IDs). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_screen_group_members (read) and add_screen_group_playlist_items (different operation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for fully replacing membership, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like adding/removing members. No prerequisites or context for when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the prerequisite but omits details like idempotency, error conditions, or state changes. Adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence with no filler. Front-loaded with the key action and condition. All words earn their 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 the simplicity of the tool and presence of an output schema, the description provides the essential condition. Lacks details on finalization steps but is nearly complete for a single-action tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter upload_id is not described; schema coverage is 0%. The schema merely gives a title 'Upload Id', which is insufficient. The description adds no parameter guidance.
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 action: 'Finish an upload after bytes have been PUT to the signed upload URL.' The verb 'finish' and resource 'upload' are specific, and the prerequisite distinguishes it from sibling tools like initiate_media_upload.
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?
Implicitly states when to use: after bytes have been PUT. Provides clear context but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like complete_media_replacement or state when not to use.
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 carry full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or response details. The output schema may cover structure, but behavioral traits are missing.
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 with action and resource. Every word is necessary, no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (no parameters, no annotations, has output schema), the description is largely complete. It could mention whether results are paginated, but for a list all tool, it is 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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter information, but with zero parameters, the baseline is 4. No additional meaning 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 action 'List' and the resource 'workspaces', with the scope 'visible to the API key'. It distinguishes itself from sibling mutating tools like create_workspace and delete_workspace.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_workspace. However, the purpose is self-evident for listing all workspaces; no explicit exclusions or context are provided.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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