Monday.com 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 Monday.com resources and actions, such as boards, items, documents, and updates. However, some overlap exists between 'monday-get-item-files' and 'monday-get-update-files', which could cause confusion as both handle file attachments but for different entities. Overall, descriptions clarify boundaries, but minor ambiguity remains in file-related tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent 'monday-verb-noun' pattern with snake_case, such as 'monday-create-board' and 'monday-get-item-updates'. The naming is highly predictable and readable, with no deviations in style or convention across the 21 tools, making it easy for agents to understand and use the set.
Tool Count3/5
With 21 tools, the count is borderline for the Monday.com domain, which involves boards, items, documents, and updates. While it covers many operations, it feels slightly heavy and could be streamlined, as some tools like 'monday-get-board-columns' and 'monday-get-board-groups' might be combined or simplified. The scope is reasonable but approaches the upper limit of what's manageable.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides comprehensive CRUD and lifecycle coverage for Monday.com resources, including boards, items, groups, documents, and updates. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool for deleting documents or updating board settings, but agents can likely work around these using existing tools like 'monday-delete-item' or 'monday-update-item'. Overall, it supports core workflows effectively.
Average 3/5 across 21 of 21 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning any behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what format the sub-items are returned in. This leaves critical operational context completely 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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what sub-items are, how they're structured, what data is returned, or any operational constraints. For a tool with one undocumented parameter and no behavioral context, this provides far too little information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the single parameter 'itemIds' has no documentation in the schema. The description adds no information about this parameter—it doesn't explain what item IDs are, where to get them, format expectations, or constraints. With no parameter details in either schema or description, this is severely inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all') and target resource ('Sub-items of a list of Monday.com Items'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'monday-get-items-by-id' or 'monday-list-items-in-groups' which also retrieve item-related data, 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. With siblings like 'monday-get-items-by-id' and 'monday-list-items-in-groups' that handle similar item data, there's no indication of when sub-items specifically are needed or what prerequisites might exist for accessing them.
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 list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't mention pagination behavior (despite 'cursor' and 'limit' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with multiple 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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, scope, and target resource.
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 (4 parameters, 3 required), low schema coverage (25%), and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling, nor does it clarify parameter usage, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low at 25%, with only 'boardId' documented. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's implied by the tool name ('specified groups'), failing to explain 'cursor' (likely for pagination), 'groupIds' (array of group identifiers), or 'limit' (max items to return). This doesn't compensate for the poor 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 ('List all items') and target resource ('in the specified groups of a Monday.com board'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'monday-get-items-by-id' or 'monday-list-subitems-in-items', which also retrieve items but with different scopes or filters.
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 'monday-get-items-by-id' (for specific items) or 'monday-list-subitems-in-items' (for subitems), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. It mentions adding a block but omits behavioral traits like error handling or response format, 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, efficient sentence ('Add a block to a document') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, 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 the complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, effects), usage guidelines, and details on return values or errors. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially for a write operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (doc_id, block_type, content, after_block_id) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints for block_type values. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance parameter 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 ('Add') and resource ('block to a document'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'monday-create-doc' (creates documents) and 'monday-get-doc-content' (reads content), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what kind of document (Monday.com document).
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 document), exclusions, or comparisons with siblings like 'monday-create-doc' (for creating documents) or 'monday-update-item' (for other modifications). Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, lacking explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a destructive operation ('Archive') but doesn't specify if this is reversible, what permissions are required, how it affects related data, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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 unnecessary words or fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand 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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like reversibility, permissions, or response format, which are critical for safe and effective use in an AI agent 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'itemId' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Archive') and target resource ('an item from a Monday.com board'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'monday-delete-item' which might serve a similar destructive purpose, 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'monday-delete-item' or 'monday-move-item-to-group', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for archiving versus other operations. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't specify permissions needed, whether this requires workspace access, what happens on duplicate board names, 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 states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns board ID), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of board creation in Monday.com, 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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (board_kind and board_name). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation 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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new Monday.com board'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'monday-create-board-group' which creates board groups rather than boards, 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 like 'monday-list-boards' for viewing existing boards or 'monday-create-board-group' for creating board groups. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'creates' a new group, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't cover permissions required, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., duplicate group names), or what happens on success (e.g., returns a group ID). For a mutation 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create a new group') and context ('in a Monday.com board'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying 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?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a group object or ID), error handling, or side effects. While the schema covers parameters well, the lack of behavioral and output information makes it inadequate for an agent to use this tool confidently without additional 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 both parameters ('boardId' and 'groupName') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format constraints, examples, or relationships between parameters). With high schema coverage, 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 ('Create a new group') and target resource ('in a Monday.com board'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'monday-create-board' (creates boards) and 'monday-move-item-to-group' (moves items to existing groups). However, it doesn't specify what a 'group' is in Monday.com context, which could help differentiate further from other board-related tools.
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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing board), when not to use it (e.g., if groups already exist), or alternatives like 'monday-get-board-groups' for checking existing groups first. The description is purely functional without contextual advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'create' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, whether updates are editable/deletable, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., returns an update ID). 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 ('create an update') and specifies the target ('on a Monday.com Item or Sub-item'). There's no wasted verbiage, 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 (a write operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, return values, and differentiation from siblings. While conciseness is good, completeness suffers for a mutation tool in a rich sibling 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 50% (only 'updateText' has a description), and the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't clarify 'itemId' format (e.g., numeric ID) or provide examples for 'updateText'. With moderate schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate enough to elevate the score above baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('create') and resource ('update/comment on Monday.com Item or Sub-item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'monday-get-item-updates' or 'monday-update-item', which would require more specific language about creating comments versus other types of 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing item), exclusions (e.g., not for board-level updates), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'monday-update-item' (which might modify item fields rather than add comments). 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes an item, implying a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical details like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should address behavioral risks, alternatives, and expected outcomes to adequately guide an AI agent in a mutation-heavy environment with siblings like archive and update tools.
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 'itemId' documented as 'Monday.com Item ID to delete.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing instructions, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced 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 ('Delete') and resource ('an item from a Monday.com board'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'monday-archive-item' or 'monday-update-item', which would require explicit differentiation to achieve 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'monday-archive-item' or 'monday-update-item'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing item ID, or warnings about irreversible deletion versus archiving.
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 it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it 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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get the Columns'), making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place, and there's no 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., column types, IDs, settings) or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this omission makes it harder for an agent to use 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?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'boardId' parameter clearly documented. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't add value here, but it 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.
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 ('Columns of a Monday.com Board'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'monday-get-board-groups' (which gets groups, not columns) and 'monday-list-boards' (which lists boards, not columns). However, it doesn't specify the scope (e.g., all columns vs. specific types), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a board ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'monday-get-board-groups' or 'monday-list-items-in-groups'. 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 the tool retrieves content but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'content' entails (e.g., text, metadata, formatting). This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.
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 ('Get the content of a specific document by ID') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a retrieval tool. It doesn't explain what 'content' includes (e.g., raw text, structured data, attachments) or the return format, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's output. This is inadequate for a tool that fetches data without structured output documentation.
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 'doc_id' parameter clearly documented as 'ID of the Monday.com document to retrieve.' The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing instructions, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating 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 ('Get the content') and resource ('specific document by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'monday-get-docs' (which likely lists documents) or 'monday-get-item-files' (which might retrieve files), leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific retrieval tool versus other get 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'monday-get-docs' (likely listing documents) and 'monday-get-items-by-id' (possibly retrieving item details), the description offers no context about prerequisites, such as needing a document ID from another operation, 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 full burden. It states it retrieves a list but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'documents' specifically refer to (e.g., file types, access permissions). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.
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 and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, with no wasted information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., document structure, fields), error cases, or operational context, making it inadequate for full agent understanding despite the tool's low complexity.
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 'limit' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without compensating 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 ('Get a list of') and resource ('documents from Monday.com'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'monday-get-doc-content' or 'monday-list-boards', which also retrieve content but different types, so it misses 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'monday-get-doc-content' (for document content) and 'monday-list-boards' (for boards), the description offers no context on selection criteria, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action 'Get files' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, pagination, response format, or error handling. For a read operation with no 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 purpose with no wasted words. It includes helpful examples (PDFs, documents, images, etc.) that add clarity without verbosity, making it appropriately sized.
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 (read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like response format, error cases, or usage context, which are crucial for an AI agent to invoke it correctly without structured data.
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 'itemId' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'files attached to a Monday.com item', with examples of file types (PDFs, documents, images, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'monday-get-item-updates' or 'monday-get-update-files' by specifying item files rather than updates or other resources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'monday-get-doc-content' which might involve files in docs.
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 item ID), exclusions (e.g., not for board-level files), or compare to siblings like 'monday-get-update-files' for files on updates. Usage is implied by the purpose 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of updates with timestamps). This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity.
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 any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (e.g., structure of updates), potential errors, or behavioral aspects like authentication needs. For a tool that retrieves data, more context is needed to ensure 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters (itemId and limit). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of updates or how the limit parameter interacts with pagination. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('updates for a specific item in Monday.com'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'monday-get-items-by-id' or 'monday-list-items-in-groups', which might also retrieve item-related data, so it misses 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of 'monday-get-items-by-id' for updates or if there are prerequisites like needing the item ID first. This lack of context leaves usage 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get all Boards' but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the schema, or what 'all' entails (e.g., workspace scope). This leaves significant gaps for a read operation with potential complexity.
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, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary details. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances like pagination or filtering. For a tool with two parameters 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'limit' and 'page' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as default values or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the 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.
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 the resource 'all Boards from Monday.com', making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'monday-get-board-columns' or 'monday-get-docs', which also retrieve data but target different resources, so it lacks 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'monday-list-items-in-groups' or 'monday-get-items-by-id' for more specific queries. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools, offering only a basic statement of function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Move') but doesn't reveal critical traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on item data or board structure), or rate limits. 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 that efficiently conveys the core action without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by specifying the verb, object, and target.
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 behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, reversibility), usage context relative to siblings, and expected outcomes. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to confidently invoke this tool in a real-world scenario.
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 parameter descriptions for 'groupId' and 'itemId'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how to obtain these IDs or their format). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Move') and the resources involved ('an item to a group in a Monday.com board'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'monday-create-item' or 'monday-update-item', which also involve item manipulation, so it misses the highest score for 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an existing item and group, or contrast with tools like 'monday-create-item' (for new items) or 'monday-update-item' (for modifying item properties without moving). This leaves 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 states the tool updates column values, implying a mutation, but doesn't describe permissions required, rate limits, side effects (e.g., if updates are reversible), or error handling. 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context, and return values. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (boardId, itemId, columnValues) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or 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 verb ('Update') and resource ('Monday.com item's or sub-item's column values'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'monday-create-item' or 'monday-delete-item' by focusing on updates rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update-related tools like 'monday-create-update', which might handle updates differently.
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 board and item IDs), exclusions (e.g., not for creating items), or compare to siblings like 'monday-create-update' for updates. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection in a server with many 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, returns paginated results, or handles errors. 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'Groups' are in Monday.com context or what the return format might be, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it 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 already documents the 'boardId' parameter fully. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as example usage or constraints, but the baseline is 3 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 ('Get') and resource ('Groups of a Monday.com Board'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'monday-list-items-in-groups' or 'monday-get-board-columns', which also retrieve board-related data but focus on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this should be used before creating items in groups or as a precursor to 'monday-move-item-to-group', 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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a fetch operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. For a 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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple fetch operation and front-loads 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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication or error handling, and while the schema covers the parameter, the description doesn't help differentiate this tool from similar siblings. For a basic fetch tool, it meets minimum requirements but could be more 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'itemId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. 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 ('Fetch') and resource ('specific Monday.com item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other item-fetching siblings like 'monday-list-items-in-groups' or 'monday-list-subitems-in-items', which would require specifying that this retrieves a single item by ID rather than listing multiple items.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'monday-list-items-in-groups' and 'monday-list-subitems-in-items' that also retrieve items, there's no indication that this tool is specifically for fetching a single item by ID rather than listing items by other criteria. 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 gets files, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what happens if no files exist. 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 that front-loads the core purpose with no wasted words. It includes helpful examples (PDFs, documents, images, etc.) that add value without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a simple read operation but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral context, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool 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 'updateId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it 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.
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 the resource 'files attached to a specific update in Monday.com', with examples of file types (PDFs, documents, images, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'monday-get-item-files' by specifying 'update' context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with that sibling.
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 'monday-get-item-files' or 'monday-get-item-updates'. The description implies usage for retrieving files from updates, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisite context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool creates items but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 that front-loads the core purpose and adds optional functionality. There is no wasted language, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions, and return values, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively in context with siblings.
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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the optional parent Item ID for Sub-items, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies. 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'new item in a Monday.com Board', with additional specificity about creating Sub-items. It distinguishes from siblings like 'monday-create-board' (creates boards) and 'monday-create-update' (creates updates), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning 'Optionally, specify the parent Item ID to create a Sub-item', which hints at when to use it for sub-items versus regular items. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'monday-create-board' or 'monday-create-doc', and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond the optional parentItemId.
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 creation action but doesn't describe what happens after creation (e.g., returns document ID, requires specific permissions, rate limits, or error conditions). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise - a single sentence that immediately states the purpose and provides the critical location parameter guidance. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the core action.
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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the location parameter logic well but doesn't address what the tool returns, error handling, or permission requirements. Given the mutation nature and lack of structured safety information, more context 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 the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by clarifying the mutually exclusive parameter groups (workspace_id+kind vs. board_id+column_id+item_id), but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new document') and resource ('in Monday.com'), specifying the exact operation. It distinguishes from siblings like monday-create-board or monday-create-item by focusing specifically on document creation, not other Monday.com entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool by specifying two alternative location contexts (workspace vs. board). However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or compare it directly to sibling tools like monday-add-doc-block, which might be for adding content to existing documents.
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:

[![mcp-server-monday MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Prat011/mcp-server-monday/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Prat011/mcp-server-monday)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-monday MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Prat011/mcp-server-monday/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Prat011/mcp-server-monday)

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/Prat011/mcp-server-monday'

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