Meilisearch MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources and actions, such as 'add-documents' vs. 'update-documents' or 'get-document' vs. 'delete-document'. However, there is some overlap between 'list-tasks' and 'get-tasks', which could cause confusion as they both retrieve task information with filtering, though descriptions help clarify their differences.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb-noun pattern throughout, using kebab-case (e.g., 'create-index', 'get-settings', 'reset-ranking-rules'). This predictability makes it easy for agents to understand and select tools based on their naming conventions without ambiguity.
Tool Count2/5
With 68 tools, the count is excessive for the Meilisearch domain, making the surface heavy and potentially overwhelming. While Meilisearch has many features, this high number suggests over-fragmentation, such as separate tools for each setting reset (e.g., 'reset-displayed-attributes', 'reset-searchable-attributes'), which could be consolidated.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of Meilisearch's core functionalities, including CRUD operations for documents and indexes, task management, search capabilities (standard, facet, vector, multi-search), settings management (get, update, reset for all attributes), and system operations (health, info, version). No obvious gaps are present for the domain.
Average 2.8/5 across 68 of 68 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but there's no information about permissions required, whether this is destructive/reversible, rate limits, side effects, or what happens to existing synonym configurations. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 4 words. While this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, it's front-loaded and contains no wasted words. Every word contributes directly to the core statement, making it structurally efficient despite being informationally sparse.
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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the contextual information is severely incomplete. The description doesn't explain what 'synonyms setting' means, what format the JSON value should take, what the tool returns, or how it differs from related operations. For a tool that modifies search/index configuration, this level of documentation is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (indexUid and value) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the synonyms setting' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update-synonyms'. It doesn't specify what resource is being updated (index synonyms), what 'update' means (replace, add, modify?), or how this differs from sibling tools like 'get-synonyms' or 'reset-synonyms'. The verb+resource combination is too vague for proper differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple related tools like 'get-synonyms', 'reset-synonyms', and 'update-settings' that likely interact with synonyms, but the description offers no context about when this specific tool is appropriate versus those alternatives. No prerequisites, constraints, or comparison information is provided.
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 of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, potential side effects, rate limits, or the format of the returned data. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that likely interacts with a database or index.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get'), though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like purpose clarity and guidelines.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'filterable attributes' are, how they're used, or what the return value includes (e.g., a list of attributes, a configuration object). Given the complexity implied by sibling tools and the lack of structured data, more context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'indexUid' clearly documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or context for the parameter. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the filterable attributes setting' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. While it indicates a retrieval action ('Get'), it doesn't specify what 'filterable attributes' are or how they differ from similar sibling tools like 'get-searchable-attributes' or 'get-sortable-attributes', leaving the purpose vague and undifferentiated.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get-settings' (which might include filterable attributes) or 'update-filterable-attributes', making it misleadingly incomplete for effective 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('Get the sortable attributes setting') without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how it handles errors, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. While brevity can lead to under-specification, in terms of structure and efficiency, this description is optimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what 'sortable attributes' are in this context, what the returned data structure looks like, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely returns configuration data, more context is needed to help the agent understand and utilize the output properly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'indexUid' clearly documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this schema information, such as explaining where to find the indexUid or providing examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the sortable attributes setting' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. While it specifies the action ('Get') and resource ('sortable attributes setting'), it doesn't clarify what 'sortable attributes' are or how this differs from similar sibling tools like 'get-filterable-attributes' or 'get-searchable-attributes'. The purpose is stated but lacks meaningful differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for retrieving different index settings (e.g., 'get-filterable-attributes', 'get-searchable-attributes', 'get-settings'), but the description doesn't explain when this specific tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or when other tools might be better suited. This leaves the agent without context for 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to existing settings. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just four words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update'), though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what faceting is, what the update does, what the expected outcome is, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a tool that modifies system settings, this minimal description leaves critical gaps for an agent to understand and use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('indexUid' and 'value') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'value' should contain or provide examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the faceting setting' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update-faceting'. It doesn't specify what 'faceting' means in this context or what resource is being updated. While it includes a verb ('Update'), it lacks specificity about what faceting entails compared to sibling tools like 'get-faceting' or 'reset-faceting'.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'reset-faceting' or 'get-faceting'. This leaves the agent with no context for tool selection among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without explaining what 'distinct attribute' entails, whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), potential side effects, error conditions, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get the distinct attribute setting', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it lacks detail, it efficiently communicates the core action without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of managing search index settings (implied by sibling tools) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'distinct attribute' is, how it relates to search functionality, or what the return value includes, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's role in the 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'indexUid' clearly documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, but since the schema fully covers the single parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the distinct attribute setting' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'get-distinct-attribute' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what a 'distinct attribute' is in this context (e.g., a search index configuration) or what 'setting' refers to, leaving the purpose vague compared to more descriptive sibling tools like 'get-searchable-attributes'.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), differentiate from similar tools like 'get-filterable-attributes' or 'reset-distinct-attribute', or specify use cases (e.g., configuring search behavior). This absence of context makes it hard for an agent to apply the tool correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, what the output format is, if there are rate limits, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence 'Get the synonyms setting', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence contributes to the core purpose, making it efficient in structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of managing synonyms in a search index context, the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral details, it fails to provide sufficient context for the agent to understand the tool's role, especially compared to sibling tools like 'update-synonyms' or 'reset-synonyms'. It should explain more about what 'synonyms setting' entails and the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' fully documented in the schema as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the synonyms setting' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'get-synonyms' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'synonyms setting', but lacks specificity about what 'synonyms setting' entails (e.g., configuration, list, status) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update-synonyms' or 'reset-synonyms' beyond the basic action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'update-synonyms', 'reset-synonyms', or 'get-settings', leaving the agent without direction on 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't reveal whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing filterable attributes not mentioned, or if there are rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant behavioral information gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While under-specified in content, it achieves perfect efficiency in form with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools for similar operations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what filterable attributes are, what format the JSON value should take, what the tool returns, or how it differs from reset-filterable-attributes. For a tool that modifies index configuration, this level of documentation is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (indexUid and value) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the filterable attributes setting' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added value. While it includes a verb ('Update') and resource ('filterable attributes setting'), it lacks specificity about what this setting controls or what 'filterable attributes' means in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like update-displayed-attributes or update-searchable-attributes.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing index), when this operation is appropriate, or what happens if used incorrectly. With multiple sibling tools for updating various index settings, the absence of any comparative context leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'update' implying a mutation, but fails to specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on search results), or error handling. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like purpose clarity and guidelines.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes, failing to compensate for the absence of structured data. This makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with parameters 'indexUid' and 'value' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the format of 'value' (e.g., JSON structure for pagination settings) or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the pagination setting' restates the tool name 'update-pagination' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the action ('update') and resource ('pagination setting') but lacks detail on what aspect of pagination is updated (e.g., page size, max results) and how it differs from sibling tools like 'reset-pagination' or 'get-pagination', leaving the purpose vague.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'reset-pagination' for reverting settings or 'get-pagination' for retrieving current values, offering no 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, the description carries full burden but only states 'update' without clarifying behavioral traits. It doesn't disclose if this is a destructive operation, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how it interacts with other settings, leaving significant gaps in transparency for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what stop words are, how the update affects search behavior, error conditions, or return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('indexUid' and 'value'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the format of 'value' or its impact, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the stop words setting' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the action ('update') and resource ('stop words setting'), but lacks detail on what stop words are or how this differs from sibling tools like 'get-stop-words' or 'reset-stop-words', leaving the purpose vague.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to sibling tools like 'reset-stop-words' or 'get-stop-words', offering no usage 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. The description fails to provide essential behavioral context for a search operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool, though it could be more front-loaded with critical context. The structure is clear but minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what facets are, how results are structured, or provide any behavioral context. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like how 'facetQuery' and 'filter' interact). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search for facet values matching specific criteria' states a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions 'facet values' and 'search' but doesn't clarify what facets are in this context or how this differs from the sibling 'search' tool. The purpose is vague rather than clearly distinguishing from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search' or 'multi-search'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't confirm if it's safe or has side effects. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return value looks like (e.g., a list of attributes). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this minimal description is insufficient to inform the agent about key behavioral traits.
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 wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it's overly terse to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary context. While efficient, it sacrifices clarity for brevity, which slightly reduces its effectiveness as a standalone description for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving a specific index setting) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'displayed attributes' are, how they differ from other settings like 'searchable attributes', or what the output entails. With no structured fields to compensate, the description fails to provide enough context for the agent to use the tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'indexUid' clearly documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the displayed attributes setting' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get-displayed-attributes'. It doesn't specify what 'displayed attributes' are or what resource they belong to (index settings). While it uses the verb 'Get', it lacks specificity about what exactly is being retrieved, making it vague compared to more descriptive sibling tools like 'get-settings' or 'get-searchable-attributes'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get-settings' (which might include displayed attributes) or 'update-displayed-attributes' and 'reset-displayed-attributes' (for modifying them). There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing index, or when this operation is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation/write operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are immediate or asynchronous, what happens to existing data, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral 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?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks the necessary detail to be truly helpful for an AI agent trying to understand when and how to use this tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'distinct attribute' means in this context, what values are acceptable, what the tool returns, or how it differs from related operations. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools like 'get-distinct-attribute' and 'reset-distinct-attribute', more context is needed to understand this tool's role in the system.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('indexUid' and 'value') having clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already documented in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the distinct attribute setting' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update-distinct-attribute'. It doesn't specify what a 'distinct attribute setting' actually does or what resource it affects. While it includes a verb ('Update') and resource ('distinct attribute setting'), it lacks specificity about what this setting controls or its purpose in the system.
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. Given the sibling tools include 'get-distinct-attribute' and 'reset-distinct-attribute', there's no indication of when to update versus get or reset. There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases for modifying this setting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what ranking rules are, what the return value looks like (e.g., a list of rules), or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool in a complex system with many siblings, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'indexUid' clearly documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining what an index is or how to obtain the identifier. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the ranking rules setting' clearly states the action (get) and resource (ranking rules setting), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-settings' or 'get-searchable-attributes' that also retrieve settings, leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes this tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get-settings' (which might include ranking rules) or 'update-ranking-rules' (for modification), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent without clear direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get' implying a read-only operation, which is clear, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be more front-loaded with additional context, but it's appropriately sized for its simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what is returned (e.g., list of words, JSON structure) or any behavioral traits. For a tool with 1 parameter and high schema coverage, it should provide more context about the operation's outcome and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, as it mentions no parameters. Baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, even without param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the stop words setting' clearly indicates a retrieval operation for a specific configuration (stop words), but it's vague about what exactly is retrieved (e.g., current list, status, or details). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update-stop-words' and 'reset-stop-words' by implying read-only access, but lacks specificity about the resource scope beyond 'setting'.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it can be inferred from the name and siblings (e.g., use for reading stop words, not modifying), the description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or comparisons to other tools like 'get-settings' which might include stop words.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'get'), error handling (e.g., if taskUid is invalid), response format, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and misses key operational details.
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 ('Get information about a specific task'), which is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted text, but it could be more informative 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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, error conditions, or how it fits with siblings like 'get-tasks'. For a tool with one parameter, it's minimal but lacks necessary context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (taskUid is documented as 'Unique identifier of the task'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter constraints, format, or examples. It relies entirely on the schema for parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get information about a specific task' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('task'), but it's vague about what information is retrieved. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-tasks' (plural) by specifying 'specific task', but doesn't clarify how it differs from 'list-tasks' or 'wait-for-task' in terms of scope or detail.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a taskUid), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get-tasks' (for multiple tasks) or 'wait-for-task' (for blocking until completion). The description implies usage for a single task but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get information about tasks' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'from' parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens when no filters are applied. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.
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. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get information about tasks') and adds a useful qualifier ('with optional filtering'). However, it could be more structured by explicitly mentioning key parameters or differentiating from siblings.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how filtering interacts with parameters like 'limit' and 'from'. For a read operation with multiple filters and no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'limit' as 'Maximum number of tasks to return', enums for 'status' and 'type'). The description adds 'optional filtering' which loosely maps to parameters but provides no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already offers, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get information about tasks with optional filtering' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('tasks'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-task' (singular) or 'list-tasks'. It specifies 'optional filtering' which adds some context but remains generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-task' (singular), 'list-tasks', or 'cancel-tasks'. It mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't clarify specific use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter 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 full burden. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are immediate or asynchronous, what happens to existing settings, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness, such as by clarifying the scope of 'searchable attributes'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what searchable attributes are, how updates affect search behavior, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of managing index settings and the lack of structured behavioral data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format of 'value', examples of valid JSON). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the searchable attributes setting' clearly states the action (update) and target (searchable attributes setting), but it's vague about what 'searchable attributes' are and doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'reset-searchable-attributes' or other update-* tools. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the resource being modified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reset-searchable-attributes' or 'get-searchable-attributes', nor does it mention prerequisites or context. With multiple sibling tools for managing searchable attributes, this omission leaves the agent without direction on 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'cancel' but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, what permissions are needed, how it affects system state, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Cancel tasks based on provided filters'—making it appropriately sized and front-loaded. Every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient information for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Statuses of tasks to cancel'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering, but since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't compensate for or enhance the schema information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Cancel tasks based on provided filters' states the action (cancel) and resource (tasks) but is vague about scope and impact. It doesn't specify whether this cancels all matching tasks globally or within a specific context, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete-tasks' or 'wait-for-task', leaving ambiguity about its exact function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., task status requirements), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'delete-tasks' or 'wait-for-task', offering no help for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or return format, which are critical for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Get documents' entails (e.g., retrieval method, pagination behavior, or result format), leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Get documents') and resource ('from a Meilisearch index'), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar siblings like 'get-document' (singular) or 'search', making it vague about scope or method compared to alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search' or 'get-document'. The description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't elaborate on critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output might contain (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence ('Get the faceting setting'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. For a simple retrieval tool, this brevity is appropriate and efficient, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to compensate for missing structured data by not explaining behavioral traits (e.g., safety, output format) or usage context. While the schema covers the parameter, the overall tool understanding remains shallow, which could hinder effective agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage (the 'indexUid' parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline score is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the significance of 'indexUid' in the context of faceting or provide examples. This meets the minimum viable standard given the comprehensive schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the faceting setting' clearly states the action (get) and resource (faceting setting), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'faceting setting' specifically entails compared to siblings like 'update-faceting' or 'reset-faceting', and it doesn't distinguish itself from related tools like 'facet-search' or 'get-filterable-attributes' which might involve faceting concepts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), contrast with siblings like 'update-faceting' for modification or 'reset-faceting' for defaults, or specify use cases (e.g., checking current configuration before changes). This leaves the agent with minimal 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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get the pagination setting', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get the pagination setting'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This is appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a configuration retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'pagination setting' includes (e.g., page size, max results), how it's returned, or potential side effects. Without structured data to compensate, the description fails to provide sufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'indexUid' documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter usage or constraints. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without description enhancement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the pagination setting' states the action (get) and resource (pagination setting), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'pagination setting' entails (e.g., current configuration, limits, defaults) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'update-pagination' or 'reset-pagination', which handle modifications. This leaves room for ambiguity in understanding the exact function.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'get-settings' (which might include pagination) or 'update-pagination' for changes. The agent must infer usage from context, lacking explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('Get') without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or the format of the returned data. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'searchable attributes' are, what the return value looks like, or how this fits into the broader system (e.g., Meilisearch context), leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'indexUid' clearly documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the searchable attributes setting' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('searchable attributes setting'), but it's vague about what this entails. It doesn't specify whether this retrieves a list, configuration, or status, and it doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get-filterable-attributes' or 'get-sortable-attributes' beyond the attribute type 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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., index must exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'update-searchable-attributes' or 'reset-searchable-attributes', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List tasks with optional filtering' implies a read operation but doesn't specify pagination behavior, default ordering, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no filters are applied. This is inadequate for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 5 words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every word earns its place, making it efficient despite being under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'list' means operationally, how results are structured, or provide any behavioral context. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond mentioning 'optional filtering' in general terms. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, but adds no meaningful semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List tasks with optional filtering' states the basic purpose (list tasks) and mentions filtering capability, but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get-tasks' or 'get-task'. It provides a minimal viable description without specific differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-tasks' or 'get-task'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, usage context, and expected outcomes, which are crucial for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. The schema covers parameters, but overall context is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('indexUid' and 'value') documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'displayed attributes' are, the format of 'value', or how they interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the displayed attributes setting' clearly states the action (update) and the target (displayed attributes setting), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what 'displayed attributes' are or distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'reset-displayed-attributes' or 'get-displayed-attributes', making it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'reset-displayed-attributes' or 'get-displayed-attributes', leaving the agent with no 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing ranking rules, whether the change is immediate or asynchronous, or potential side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, though it lacks 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?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a description that provides minimal context, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what ranking rules are, how they affect search, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (indexUid and value) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'ranking rules' are or the expected format of the 'value' JSON. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('update') and resource ('ranking rules setting'), which provides a basic understanding of purpose. However, it's vague about what 'ranking rules' are or what this setting controls, and it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar update tools like 'update-settings' or 'update-searchable-attributes' in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what other tools might be related (like 'get-ranking-rules' to check current rules or 'reset-ranking-rules' to revert to defaults).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's destructive to existing data, what the response format is, or if it triggers asynchronous tasks (common in sibling tools like 'update-documents'). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Update'), making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost of 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?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what sortable attributes are, how the update affects search functionality, or what the return value looks like. With many sibling tools for similar operations, more context is needed to distinguish and use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'indexUid' and 'value' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the JSON structure for 'value' or how it relates to sortable attributes. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Update') and the target ('the sortable attributes setting'), which provides a basic understanding of purpose. However, it doesn't specify what 'sortable attributes' are or how they differ from other settings like 'searchable attributes' or 'filterable attributes' among the many sibling tools, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-sortable-attributes' (for retrieval) and 'reset-sortable-attributes' (for resetting), it fails to clarify the context or prerequisites for updating, such as after retrieving current settings or before resetting.
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 discloses the tool mutates settings ('update') but lacks details on permissions, side effects, reversibility, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'typo tolerance' means, the impact of updates, or return values, leaving gaps in understanding despite schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters 'indexUid' and 'value' are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these parameters are used for updating, aligning with the baseline score when schema handles documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the typo tolerance setting' clearly states the action (update) and target (typo tolerance setting), but it's vague about what 'typo tolerance' entails and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get-typo-tolerance' or 'reset-typo-tolerance'. It specifies the resource but lacks detail on scope or effect.
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 'reset-typo-tolerance' or 'get-typo-tolerance', nor prerequisites such as needing an existing index. Usage is implied by the verb 'update', but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Wait for a specific task to complete', which implies a blocking or polling operation, but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it polls (as suggested by the intervalMs parameter), returns upon completion or timeout, what happens on failure, or if it's resource-intensive. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence: 'Wait for a specific task to complete'. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, with zero wasted words. This is appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (blocking/polling operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., task status, error on timeout), behavioral nuances like polling mechanics, or error handling. For a tool that likely involves waiting and state changes, more context is needed to guide proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (taskUid, timeoutMs, intervalMs). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact (e.g., polling with intervalMs until timeoutMs) or default behaviors. Since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Wait for a specific task to complete' clearly states the action (wait) and target (task), but it's vague about what 'wait' entails (e.g., polling, blocking) and doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get-task' or 'get-tasks', which might retrieve task status without waiting. It specifies 'specific task' via the taskUid parameter, adding some specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a taskUid from another operation), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get-task' (for immediate status checks) or 'list-tasks' (for overviews). Usage is implied only by the tool name and parameters.
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 but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention whether this is a write operation (implied but not explicit), potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing documents), authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. Significant behavioral context is missing for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, whether documents replace existing ones, or how to handle errors. Given the complexity of adding documents to a search index, more behavioral context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 where schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add documents') and target resource ('to a Meilisearch index'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update-documents' which has similar functionality, missing sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-documents' or 'create-index'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., index must exist), appropriate scenarios, or exclusions, offering only basic functional information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates an index but doesn't mention whether this is a mutating operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information (create + resource) and contains no unnecessary elaboration. This is an excellent example of concise tool documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., does it return the index object?), what errors might occur, or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of creating a database/index resource, more context about the operation's effects and requirements would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (indexUid, primaryKey) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new Meilisearch index'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'update-index' or 'swap-indexes', but the verb 'Create' implies initial creation rather than modification or exchange.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-index' or 'swap-indexes'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether an index must not already exist), typical use cases, or constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action ('Delete all documents') but doesn't mention critical aspects like whether this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, triggers background tasks, or has rate limits. For a high-impact mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address critical context like what 'delete all' entails (permanent removal?), whether it's asynchronous (referencing sibling 'wait-for-task'), or what happens to the index structure. The agent lacks necessary information to use this tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete all documents') and the target ('in a Meilisearch index'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-document' (singular) or 'delete-documents' (batch), leaving some ambiguity about scope.
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 'delete-document' or 'delete-documents'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate scenarios for mass deletion versus targeted operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a document, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if deletion is permanent, reversible (e.g., via tasks), or has side effects. It also omits information about permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the verb 'Delete' and specifies the key resource and identifier, making it easy to parse. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or 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?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details like whether the operation is synchronous/asynchronous, what happens on success/failure, or how it relates to Meilisearch's task system (implied by sibling tools like 'get-task'). Given the complexity of deletion in a search index context, more behavioral context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, constraints, or relationships). This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema adequately covers parameters, but the description doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a document by its ID from a Meilisearch index'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'delete-all-documents' or 'delete-documents' by specifying deletion of a single document by ID. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives in the text itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete-all-documents' or 'delete-documents'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the document must exist) or contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, it lacks details on permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to associated data. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety warnings, expected outcomes, or error conditions, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'indexUid' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a Meilisearch index'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-document' or 'delete-all-documents', which also perform deletion operations on related resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., index must exist), consequences (e.g., permanent deletion), or when to choose other deletion tools like 'delete-document' for partial data removal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, how many tasks might be affected by filters, or what happens if no filters are provided. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. 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?
For a destructive operation with 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'delete' entails (permanent removal? archival?), doesn't warn about potential data loss, doesn't describe response format or error conditions, and provides no usage context. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering capability ('based on provided filters'), which is already evident from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('tasks') with the qualification 'based on provided filters', which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'cancel-tasks' or 'delete-documents', which handle related but different operations on tasks and documents respectively.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or compare it to sibling tools like 'cancel-tasks' (which might stop tasks without deletion) or 'delete-documents' (which handles document removal rather than task cleanup).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it retrieves a document but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist), performance characteristics, authentication requirements, or return format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding what the tool does, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a retrieval tool. It doesn't explain what is returned (e.g., document fields, error responses), how to handle missing documents, or any system constraints. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output documentation, more contextual information is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool uses an ID for retrieval. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, though no value is added beyond the structured data.
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 ('document by its ID from a Meilisearch index'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get-documents' (plural) or 'search', but the specificity of retrieving by ID provides some implicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-documents' (plural retrieval), 'search' (query-based), and 'delete-document' (removal), there's no indication of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific ID-based retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place in conveying the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'embedders configuration' entails, the return format, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool in a complex system with many siblings, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter is required for configuration retrieval. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra context is provided.
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 ('embedders configuration for an index'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update-embedders' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The specificity is good but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-settings' or 'reset-embedders'. The description implies usage for retrieving embedder configurations but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers. This leaves the agent without clear decision-making criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific information is returned (e.g., index settings, statistics, or metadata). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There's zero waste or redundancy in the phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with good schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., index configuration, status, or metadata), which is critical for a 'get' operation. For a tool in a complex ecosystem with many siblings, more context about the return value and usage distinctions is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. However, with high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('information about a specific Meilisearch index'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-indexes' or 'get-document', which would require a more specific scope definition to earn a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-indexes' (for listing all indexes) or 'get-document' (for retrieving documents within an index). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.
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 implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'all settings' entails (e.g., format, scope). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'all settings' returns, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool with 1 parameter but lacking structured behavioral data, this leaves critical gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter is required, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all settings for a Meilisearch index'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-index' or 'get-task' by focusing on settings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them in the text.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose it over other 'get-' tools, or any context-specific usage scenarios, leaving the agent to infer based on 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 provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states it lists indexes but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not stated), pagination behavior (hinted by parameters but not explained), error conditions, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential operational implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration, perfectly balancing brevity with clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, index metadata included), error handling, or dependencies like required permissions. Given the complexity of interacting with a search engine instance, more context is needed for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters 'limit' and 'offset' are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a listing operation, which aligns with the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all indexes in the Meilisearch instance'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-index' (which retrieves a specific index) or 'stats' (which might include index statistics), leaving room for slight ambiguity in sibling context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like checking index existence before operations, comparing with 'get-index' for single-index details, or using 'stats' for broader instance metrics, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions resetting to 'default value' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a destructive operation, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how it handles errors. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('reset') and target. There is zero waste, and it's appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, side effects, return values, or error handling. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use, especially compared to siblings with more complex operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what an index is or how the reset applies. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.
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 ('reset') and the target ('distinct attribute setting'), specifying it sets to 'default value'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update-distinct-attribute' by focusing on resetting rather than updating, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific and actionable.
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 like 'update-distinct-attribute' or 'get-distinct-attribute'. The description implies usage for reverting to defaults but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for decision-making among similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Reset' implies a destructive or mutation operation, but the description does not specify what 'reset' entails (e.g., reverting to defaults, clearing custom settings, or requiring reconfiguration). It also omits details like potential side effects, permissions needed, or task handling, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for tool descriptions.
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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as what 'reset' does behaviorally, what the expected outcome is, whether it triggers asynchronous tasks (implied by sibling tools like 'wait-for-task'), or error conditions. For a tool that likely alters system state, more detail is needed to guide safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'indexUid' clearly documented as the 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it does not explain parameter usage or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.
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 ('reset') and the target ('embedders configuration for an index'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-embedders' or 'get-embedders', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-embedders' or 'get-embedders'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the index must exist or be in a specific state, and does not mention any exclusions or recommended scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions resetting to default value, which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires permissions, is destructive, or has side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the reset entails, potential impacts, or return values, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'indexUid'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'faceting setting' entails. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Reset') and the target ('faceting setting'), specifying it sets to 'default value'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update-faceting' by focusing on resetting rather than updating, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-faceting' or 'get-faceting'. The description implies it's for resetting to defaults but doesn't specify contexts or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('reset'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting search results), or involves rate limits. The description is minimal and fails to add meaningful context beyond the basic action, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There is zero waste, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'default value' means, potential impacts on the system, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that modifies settings, this minimal description fails to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'indexUid' clearly documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the existing 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 ('reset') and the target resource ('filterable attributes setting'), specifying it sets to 'default value'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update-filterable-attributes' by focusing on resetting rather than updating, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This provides a specific verb+resource combination that is understandable in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-filterable-attributes' or 'get-filterable-attributes'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the index must exist or be in a certain state, and doesn't mention any exclusions or conditions for usage. This leaves the agent without clear direction on 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('reset') which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it's destructive, rate limits, or what the default value entails. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('reset') and target ('ranking rules setting'), with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and clear purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, response format), usage context, and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured data, making it inadequate for reliable agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the context of 'indexUid' or its format. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('reset') and the target ('ranking rules setting'), specifying it sets to 'default value'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update-ranking-rules' by implying a reset vs. update, though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other 'reset-*' tools 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-ranking-rules' or 'get-ranking-rules' is provided. The description implies usage for resetting to defaults, but lacks context on prerequisites, side effects, or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('reset'), suggesting it changes settings, but doesn't specify if this requires admin permissions, whether it's reversible, what the default value entails, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely modifies system configuration.
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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action ('reset') and target, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that resets settings (a mutation), the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or what happens after resetting. It also doesn't explain the broader context of 'searchable attributes' or how this fits with sibling tools, leaving gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'indexUid' clearly documented as the 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what an 'index' is in this context or how to obtain the 'indexUid'. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('reset') and the target ('searchable attributes setting to its default value'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'reset-filterable-attributes' or 'update-searchable-attributes', which would require more specific context about what 'searchable attributes' are.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'reset-searchable-attributes' over 'update-searchable-attributes' or 'get-searchable-attributes', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an existing index. This leaves the agent without clear 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is a reset to defaults, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires admin permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to existing data, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome. There's no wasted wording, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral implications (e.g., destructiveness, permissions), expected outcomes, or error handling, which are critical for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Reset') and target ('all settings for a Meilisearch index'), specifying the outcome ('to their default values'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update-settings' by indicating a complete reset rather than partial updates, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-settings' or other reset-* tools. The description implies it's for resetting all settings at once, but lacks context on prerequisites, consequences, or specific scenarios where it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool resets to default, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it's destructive (likely yes, as it changes settings), rate limits, or what the default value entails. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('reset') and target. There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool (reset implies change), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the default value is, how the reset affects the system, error handling, or response format. For a tool that modifies settings, this leaves too much unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with one parameter 'indexUid' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'indexUid' represents or its format. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('reset') and the target ('sortable attributes setting'), specifying it's to a default value. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update-sortable-attributes' by implying a reset vs. custom update, though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other 'reset-' tools (e.g., 'reset-displayed-attributes'), keeping it at 4.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It implies usage when reverting to defaults, but lacks context like prerequisites (e.g., after an update) or comparisons to siblings like 'get-sortable-attributes' or 'update-sortable-attributes'. This results in minimal guidance.
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 implies a mutation ('reset'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is destructive (likely yes, as it changes settings), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or returns any output. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a mutation (implied by 'reset') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., what 'default value' means, whether it's reversible), error conditions, or output format, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the tool applies to an index, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('reset') and the target resource ('synonyms setting'), specifying it sets it to 'its default value'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get-synonyms' (read) and 'update-synonyms' (modify), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other reset tools (e.g., 'reset-settings').
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), exclusions, or compare with siblings like 'update-synonyms' for custom changes or 'get-synonyms' to check current values.
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 implies a mutation ('reset'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to existing custom settings, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and target without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by directly conveying the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context such as behavioral details (e.g., permissions, reversibility), usage guidelines relative to siblings, and expected outcomes, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'indexUid' parameter fully. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining what an index is or how to obtain the UID), resulting in the baseline score of 3.
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 ('reset') and the target ('typo tolerance setting to its default value'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-typo-tolerance' or 'update-typo-tolerance', which would require mentioning it's a mutation operation versus a read or update operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), contrast with 'update-typo-tolerance' for custom settings, or reference 'get-typo-tolerance' to check current values first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., result format, pagination behavior, error conditions), whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), or any performance characteristics. For a search tool with 15 parameters and no annotations, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place. No structural issues or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects like error handling or performance. For a search tool with rich parameter options, this minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how parameters interact or provide usage examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional param details in the description.
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 ('Search for documents') and target resource ('in a Meilisearch index'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'facet-search', 'multi-search', or 'vector-search', which are also search-related operations, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple search-related sibling tools (e.g., 'facet-search', 'multi-search', 'vector-search'), but the description doesn't mention any of them or explain when this basic search is appropriate versus more specialized searches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets statistics' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose what statistics are returned, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what statistics are returned, their format, or any behavioral aspects. Given the complexity of statistical data and complete lack of structured output information, this leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the optional 'indexUid' parameter. The description mentions 'all indexes or a specific index' which aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter description.
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 statistics') and resource ('about all indexes or a specific index'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'get-index' or 'list-indexes', but the statistical focus is reasonably distinct from those listing operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get-index', 'list-indexes', and 'get-tasks', there's no indication of when statistical data is preferred over basic metadata or task information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is a 'swap' but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is destructive (e.g., overwrites data), requires specific permissions, has side effects on associated data, or how it handles errors. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it highly efficient and easy to parse at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool (swapping indexes likely involves data movement and potential downtime), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, side effects, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'indexes' parameter fully documented in the schema as a JSON array of index pairs. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the swap mechanism or constraints on index names. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('swap') and target ('indexes in Meilisearch'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-index' or 'create-index' that also manipulate indexes, leaving room for confusion about when to choose this specific operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for index management (create-index, delete-index, update-index, list-indexes), the description offers no context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving the agent to guess based on 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Update documents' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a destructive operation, what happens on failure, if it requires specific permissions, or how it interacts with Meilisearch's task system (implied by sibling tools like 'get-task'). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like error handling, return values (e.g., task IDs), or how it differs from similar tools (e.g., 'add-documents'). For a tool that modifies data, more behavioral context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters (indexUid, documents, primaryKey) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the JSON format for 'documents' or when 'primaryKey' is required. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('documents in a Meilisearch index'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add-documents' or 'delete-documents', which would require specifying what 'update' means in this context (e.g., partial vs. full updates).
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 'add-documents' or 'delete-documents'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., existing documents to update) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'configure' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing configurations, or if it's idempotent. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'configure' involves, potential side effects, or return values. For a tool that modifies embedders, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('indexUid' and 'embedders'). The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'embedders' configurations entail or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Configure') and target resource ('embedders for vector search'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'reset-embedders' or 'get-embedders', which would require more specific language about what 'configure' entails versus 'reset' or 'get'.
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 'reset-embedders' or 'enable-vector-search'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether vector search must be enabled first, or when configuration is needed versus resetting to defaults.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' implies mutation but doesn't specify if changes are reversible, what permissions are required, or potential side effects (e.g., impact on search performance). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, error handling), expected response format, or how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('indexUid' and 'settings'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for the JSON settings or validation rules, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and target ('settings for a Meilisearch index'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-settings' (read) and 'reset-settings' (reset to defaults), though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reset-settings' or 'get-settings'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index) or exclusions, offering only basic functional intent without usage boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action but doesn't describe what the tool returns (search results format), potential limitations (rate limits, index requirements), error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a complex search tool with 10 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation, though it could benefit from additional context about when to use it versus sibling tools.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex vector search tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (search results format), how results are ranked, error handling, or performance expectations. The agent would need to guess about the output structure and behavioral characteristics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, providing good documentation for all 10 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. However, it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., vector vs embedder+query alternatives) or provide usage examples that would add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Perform a vector search') and target ('in a Meilisearch index'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from the sibling 'search' tool, which appears to be a general text search function, leaving some ambiguity about when to use vector search versus regular search.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like the 'search' sibling tool. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with other search methods available in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this explicitly or describe other behaviors like error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the return value looks like (since there's no output schema).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral context (e.g., confirming it's safe, describing the return format) to be fully 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'indexUid' clearly documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional meaning about this parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('typo tolerance setting'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar 'get-' sibling tools like 'get-settings' or 'get-ranking-rules', which follow the same pattern for retrieving different configuration aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), when it's appropriate (e.g., to check current configuration), or what other tools might be related (like 'update-typo-tolerance' or 'reset-typo-tolerance').
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 implies a mutation ('reset'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's destructive (likely yes, as it changes settings), what the default value is, or how it affects existing data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action but lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., effects, permissions) and doesn't explain return values, leaving gaps for an agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'indexUid' clearly documented as the 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('reset') and the target resource ('displayed attributes setting'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-displayed-attributes' (read) and 'update-displayed-attributes' (modify), but doesn't explicitly mention the sibling 'reset-distinct-attribute' or others, which slightly reduces differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), contrast with 'update-displayed-attributes' for custom settings, or reference sibling tools like 'reset-settings' for broader resets, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool resets settings, implying a mutation, but doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., impact on search results), permissions required, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficient, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic action. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects or return values, which are important given the context. However, the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, straightforward reset) makes this somewhat adequate but with clear 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as explaining what an index is or providing examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('reset') and the target ('pagination setting to its default value'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-pagination' or 'get-pagination', which would require mentioning it's specifically for reverting to defaults rather than modifying or retrieving settings.
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-pagination' or 'get-pagination'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing index or after changes to pagination settings, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation operation ('reset'), but doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, is reversible, affects other settings, or has side effects. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation operation with one parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and output, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the 'indexUid' parameter fully. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline score when schema coverage is high.
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 ('reset') and the target resource ('stop words setting to its default value'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-stop-words' or 'update-stop-words', which would require a 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 'get-stop-words' (to check current settings) or 'update-stop-words' (to modify settings). The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is destructive ('Delete'), but lacks details on permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, rate limits, or what happens if IDs don't exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the key action and resource, making it immediately clear and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., permanence, error handling), usage differentiation from siblings, and output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('indexUid' and 'documentIds'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples for 'documentIds' or context about index selection. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete multiple documents') and target resource ('from a Meilisearch index'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete-document' (singular) and 'delete-all-documents' (all documents). It precisely communicates the verb and scope.
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 'delete-document' (for single documents) or 'delete-all-documents' (for all documents). The description mentions 'multiple documents' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from these siblings or specify 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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions enabling an 'experimental feature,' hinting at potential instability or changes, but fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, side effects (e.g., if it affects other operations), rate limits, or what happens upon success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without any fluff or unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but omits behavioral details like effects, permissions, or return values. For a mutation tool, this is adequate but leaves clear gaps, scoring as the minimum viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could briefly note the lack of inputs. A baseline of 4 is applied as it adequately handles the zero-parameter case without redundancy.
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 ('Enable') and the resource ('vector search experimental feature in Meilisearch'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get-experimental-features' or 'vector-search', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get-experimental-features' (to check status) or 'vector-search' (to use the feature). It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks behavioral context like response format or usage scenarios, which would help the agent understand how to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly avoids mentioning any, earning a baseline score of 4 for appropriate compensation.
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 the status') and resource ('experimental features in Meilisearch'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-settings' or 'info' that might also retrieve configuration data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] the system information' but doesn't specify what information is included (e.g., server configuration, performance metrics, version details), whether it's read-only, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on what 'system information' entails and how it differs from sibling tools, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('system information of the Meilisearch server'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'health', 'stats', or 'version', which also provide server-related information, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'info' over 'health' (server status), 'stats' (index statistics), or 'version' (software version), leaving the agent without context for selection among related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions performing searches but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, potential side effects (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs), or what the output looks like (e.g., aggregated results, error handling). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read/write nature, error handling), output format, and usage context compared to siblings. For a tool in a complex server with many search-related alternatives, more guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'searches' documented as a JSON array of search queries with indexUid and q fields. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.
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 ('perform multiple searches') and the scope ('in one request'), which distinguishes it from the sibling 'search' tool that presumably handles single searches. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what resource is being searched (e.g., documents, indexes), leaving some ambiguity compared to more specific descriptions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when multiple searches are needed simultaneously, suggesting an alternative to repeated single searches. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus the 'search' tool or other search-related siblings like 'facet-search' or 'vector-search', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool updates an index, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., reindexing), or what happens on failure. The 'currently only supports' note adds some context about limitations, but overall, critical behavioral details are missing for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a useful limitation note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and its current limitation, but doesn't cover behavioral aspects, error handling, or return values. For a mutation tool without annotations, more context would be beneficial to ensure safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (indexUid, primaryKey) fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 a Meilisearch index') and specifies the resource being modified. It distinguishes this tool from other update tools by explicitly stating 'currently only supports updating the primary key,' which helps differentiate it from siblings like update-documents or update-settings. However, it doesn't fully distinguish from all siblings (e.g., update-index vs. create-index could use more contrast).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by stating 'currently only supports updating the primary key,' suggesting this is for modifying index configuration rather than data. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like create-index (for initial setup) or other update-* tools for different settings. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool checks health but doesn't disclose what 'healthy' means (e.g., response codes, timeouts, error conditions), whether it performs any side effects, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a monitoring tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without any structural fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'healthy' or what the agent should expect as a response, which is crucial context for a health-check tool. The lack of output schema means the description should ideally provide more behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps. No additional parameter context is required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Check') and target resource ('Meilisearch server'), with the qualifier 'healthy' precisely defining the purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like 'info', 'stats', or 'version' which provide different status information, making the tool's unique function immediately apparent.
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 server health monitoring but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'info' (which provides server details) or 'stats' (which provides performance metrics). No guidance on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions is provided, leaving usage context somewhat ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get'), but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded for a simple, parameterless tool.
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, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete—it clearly defines the purpose. However, it lacks details on authentication or response format, which could be helpful given no annotations or output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately omits parameter details, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('version information of the Meilisearch server'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'health' or 'info' by focusing on version details rather than general status or configuration.
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 retrieving version data, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'health' or 'info', nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
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:

[![iflow-mcp_meilisearch-ts-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/OrionPotter/iflow-mcp_meilisearch-ts-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/OrionPotter/iflow-mcp_meilisearch-ts-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![iflow-mcp_meilisearch-ts-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/OrionPotter/iflow-mcp_meilisearch-ts-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/OrionPotter/iflow-mcp_meilisearch-ts-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/OrionPotter/iflow-mcp_meilisearch-ts-mcp'

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