Serena MCP Server
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.4
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, such as find_file vs list_dir vs search_for_pattern. However, replace_regex and replace_symbol_body both modify file content, and the three think_about_* tools could be confused, though descriptions do differentiate them.
Naming Consistency4/5The vast majority use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., find_file, read_file, write_memory). Minor deviations like 'onboarding' (noun) and 'check_onboarding_performed' (phrase) slightly break the pattern but remain readable.
Tool Count3/5With 25 tools, the server straddles the upper boundary of what is reasonable for its scope. The feature set is broad, covering file, symbol, memory, project, and meta operations, but the count feels heavy and could overwhelm an agent.
Completeness3/5The server covers file read/create/edit/search, symbol analysis/editing, memory CRUD, and project onboarding, but lacks a dedicated file deletion tool (only delete_memory exists). Rename/move operations are also absent, which agents may need for full file lifecycle management.
Average 3.8/5 across 25 of 25 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues 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 is failing
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.jsonto 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 on behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing about side effects, state changes, or what 'preparing' involves. The agent cannot infer whether this resets context, clears memory, or performs other actions, making it highly opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences) and the second sentence is directly useful. However, the first sentence essentially duplicates the tool name without adding new information, so not every sentence earns its keep; it is concise but somewhat wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is low in complexity (no parameters) and has an output schema, so return value details may not be needed. However, the description omits crucial behavioral context—what 'preparing' does to the conversation state—leaving a significant gap in understanding when and why it should be invoked.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and the description adds no conflicting or confusing parameter information. Per guidance, 0 params baseline is 4; the description aligns with the schema and adds no further need for documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Instructions for preparing for a new conversation' largely restates the tool name without specifying what the tool actually does. It lacks a concrete verb revealing the action or effect, and does not distinguish from siblings beyond a general 'preparing' notion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states 'This tool should only be called on explicit user request,' providing a clear when-to-use condition and an implicit exclusion (do not call automatically). It does not mention alternatives, but the condition is direct and useful.
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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'replaces' (a mutation), but provides no disclosure about irreversibility, whether the symbol must exist, or any side effects. It does not mention that the body must be indented correctly (though the schema covers that). This is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and relatively concise. However, the phrasing is awkward and could be clearer (e.g., 'Replaces the body of the symbol identified by `name_path` with the provided `body`'). It earns its place but not exemplary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations and only a terse description. It lacks essential context about how name_path relates to find_symbol (though schema mentions it), what happens if the symbol is not found, and whether the operation is reversible. The output schema exists but does not compensate for these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, including the meaning of name_path and body. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Replaces') and identifies the resource ('body of the symbol') with a lookup mechanism ('name_path'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like insert_before_symbol/insert_after_symbol (which insert) and replace_regex (which replaces via regex). The phrase 'with the given `name_path`' is slightly ambiguous but contextually implies the symbol identified by name_path.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. It does not mention cases where replace_regex or insert_* would be more appropriate, nor any prerequisites like needing to find_symbol first. The intended usage is only implied by the tool's name.
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 must fully disclose behavior. It merely instructs to call the tool, with no explanation of what happens when called, whether it is read-only, what output it produces, or any side effects. This is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it is under-specified. It is not overly verbose, but the lack of informative content makes it borderline under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 params) and the existence of an output schema, the description still fails to explain the tool's purpose, behavioral effects, or expected output. It leaves the agent without sufficient context to understand why this tool is important or what it does beyond its name.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable since there are none to clarify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states when to call the tool ('whenever you feel that you are done'), but does not explicitly state what the tool does beyond its name. It conveys the general purpose of self-checking completion, but is vague and does not distinguish clearly from sibling think_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a clear when-to-use condition ('when you feel done'), which is directly actionable. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, falling short of the full 5-point standard.
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 responsibility for disclosing side effects, but it only says 'activates' without explaining what that entails. No information about state changes, errors, or requirements is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, making it extremely easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse for the agent to understand the tool's role in the broader workflow. It lacks information about when to activate a project or what consequences this action has.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides a full description of the parameter, covering both names and paths, so the description adds little and even narrows the meaning by saying 'given name' instead of 'name or path'. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (activates) and the resource (project), making the primary purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other tools and slightly narrows the parameter to 'name' even though the schema allows a path.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites or effects mentioned. The description only states the action without 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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions writing to memory in md format but does not disclose important behaviors such as whether existing memories are overwritten, whether memory names must be unique, or any potential side effects. The mutation implied by 'Write' is not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Write some information'), and each clause adds relevant information (project usefulness, md format, meaningful name). It is slightly run-on but remains concise and free of unnecessary filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, the description should address overwrite behavior, naming constraints, and parameter meanings. It currently leaves significant gaps, making it incomplete for a write/mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has three parameters (content, memory_name, max_answer_chars) with 0% description coverage. The description only indirectly hints at memory_name and content, and the phrase 'memory name should be meaningful' adds some semantic value. However, the max_answer_chars parameter is completely unexplained, and the description does not provide sufficient detail to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: writing project information to a memory in md format for future use. It explicitly mentions the format ('md format') and the need for a meaningful name, which distinguishes it from related memory tools like read_memory, delete_memory, and list_memories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by saying 'that can be useful for future tasks', providing a clear reason to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., when to use write_memory vs create_text_file) or provide any exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 that it 'activates' modes but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it replaces current modes, affects conversation state, or has side effects. The examples help but do not convey the impact on the agent's state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, short and front-loaded with the action 'Activates'. The examples are useful and do not waste space. It earns its place with minimal verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. However, since there is no annotation and the tool seems to affect mode state, additional context about expected mode names or effects would improve completeness. The output schema exists but is not shown; if it explains return values, the description need not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the only parameter 'modes', so the schema already explains it. The description adds context by showing example values ('editing', 'interactive', etc.), which enriches the parameter understanding beyond the generic schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Activates the desired modes') with specific resource ('modes') and examples ('editing', 'interactive', 'planning', 'one-shot'). While it doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools, the verb 'activates' and mode names distinguish it from file/search/memory tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides examples of when to use it (activating modes like editing/interactive or planning/one-shot), which implies its context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, which is a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description offers detailed matching semantics (absolute vs relative paths, trailing slashes, ancestor constraints) but has no annotations to lean on. It contains an ambiguous statement about exact vs substring matching, and does not explain how the substring_matching parameter modifies behavior. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with a main paragraph and bullet list, but it is quite long and includes some redundant details and an erroneous parameter name. While the complexity of name_path justifies length, the inaccurate reference makes it less concise and clear than it could be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the description focuses almost exclusively on name_path and relative_path, leaving out integrated guidance on include_kinds, exclude_kinds, include_body, and substring_matching. For a tool with eight parameters, this is a notable gap, but the schema partially compensates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage. The description adds significant value for name_path, but incorrectly references a non-existent parameter (`within_relative_path`) and does not clarify how substring_matching interacts with the described rules. This reduces reliability of the added guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool retrieves information on code entities using a name_path pattern, with specific examples and distinctions from file paths. It clearly identifies the resource (symbols) and the operation (retrieve), differentiating it from sibling tools like find_file and find_referencing_symbols.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides useful guidance on when to use depth and relative_path, but misnames the parameter as `within_relative_path` instead of `relative_path`, which could mislead an agent. It does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like find_referencing_symbols or get_symbols_overview, leaving the when-not-to-use 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the core replacement behavior and wildcard strategy, but it does not warn that this is a permanent file mutation, does not mention permission or irreversibility risks, and does not explain error behavior for multiple matches (though that is in the schema). For a mutation tool with no annotation safety hints, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise: two sentences of guidance plus an emphasized note. However, the all-caps wildcard warning is somewhat redundant because the same advice appears in the preceding sentence. The structure front-loads the core purpose and usage guidance well, but the emphatic note could be trimmed without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description offers useful usage strategy but omits critical context for a mutation tool: no warning about permanent changes, no mention of failure modes (e.g., multiple-match error when allow_multiple_occurrences is false), and no explicit pointer to sibling tools for simpler replacements. It is not fully complete for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing a strong baseline. The description adds meaningful guidance for the 'regex' parameter by suggesting wildcard usage and a compact form 'beginning.*?end-of-text-to-be-replaced,' which helps agents construct effective patterns. It does not add information for 'repl' or 'allow_multiple_occurrences,' but the schema already covers those well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Replaces one or more occurrences of the given regular expression.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling symbol-level tools by stating it is 'the preferred way... whenever the symbol-level tools are not appropriate.' This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from replace_symbol_body and similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to use it: 'preferred way to replace content in a file whenever the symbol-level tools are not appropriate.' It also provides concrete guidance on using wildcards and regex forms like 'beginning.*?end-of-text-to-be-replaced.' However, it does not explicitly name specific alternative tools or state clear when-not-to-use conditions beyond the broad 'symbol-level tools not appropriate' phrase.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation (inserts content) but does not explain side effects, such as how existing content is shifted, whether the symbol must exist, error behavior, or any permissions required. This is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and then gives a concrete example of usage. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has moderate complexity with 3 required parameters and no annotations. The description explains the core use case well, but it omits important behavioral details such as prerequisites (e.g., file and symbol must exist) and potential impacts on surrounding code. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the behavioral gaps leave the description incomplete for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds little over the schema—it refers to 'given content' and 'given symbol' but does not elaborate on the specific semantics of `name_path`, `relative_path`, or `body` beyond what the schema already provides. 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Inserts the given content before the beginning of the definition of the given symbol.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the placement 'before' distinguishes it from the sibling tool `insert_after_symbol`. Typical use cases are also listed, reinforcing purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (e.g., inserting a class, function, or import statement before a symbol). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like `insert_after_symbol` or `replace_symbol_body`. The usage context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature of overwriting and the return message type ('Returns a message indicating success or failure'). However, it does not mention potential side effects like handling of missing directories or encoding behavior beyond the utf-8 note in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and directly states the return value. Every word adds value and there is no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with well-described schema and a stated return message, the description is complete enough. It could explicitly mention that overwriting replaces content without confirmation, but that is already implied by 'overwrite an existing file'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('relative_path' and 'content'), so the tool description adds no additional parameter guidance beyond what the schema provides. The schema itself sufficiently documents the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Write' and identifies the resource as a file, clearly stating it creates or overwrites. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_file, read_file, and write_memory, which target different operations or storage types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating/overwriting text files (as indicated by the tool name) but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like write_memory or edit tools. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the return format (JSON with stdout and optionally stderr) and hints at memory-checking behavior. However, with no annotations, it leaves critical behavioral aspects undisclosed: shell execution can have arbitrary side effects (file modifications, system changes), and there's no mention of timeouts or error handling. The safety warning is advisory, not a transparency disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at three sentences, starts with the primary purpose, and includes a necessary safety caution. The sentence about memory is slightly ambiguous but not wasteful. It avoids excessive detail, so it's well-structured for quick reading.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool's complexity is high (arbitrary shell execution), and while the output schema and parameter schema cover return values and parameters, the description doesn't explain execution context, side effects, or safety mechanisms beyond the rm example. It also doesn't discuss timeouts or exit code behavior. Given the available annotations are absent, the description only partially covers what an agent needs to know.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter information beyond the schema, only linking 'optionally stderr output' to capture_stderr. It doesn't elaborate on cwd or max_answer_chars behavior, which the schema already covers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Execute a shell command and return its output,' which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from sibling tools (file operations, memory operations) as the only tool for shell execution. The mention of returning stdout/stderr clarifies the output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a prerequisite ('If there is a memory about suggested commands, read that first') and an explicit safety exclusion ('Never execute unsafe shell commands like rm -rf / or similar!'). However, it doesn't name alternatives or explain when this tool should be preferred over file-specific tools, so it lacks explicit when-not/alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the key behavioral trait that it ignores gitignored files, and it states the return format. However, it does not disclose whether the search is recursive, what form the paths take in the result, or any potential side effects. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden but leaves these behavioral aspects unaddressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. It conveys the essential information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and full schema parameter coverage, the description covers the essentials. The only notable gap is the lack of clarity about recursion depth and whether the returned paths are absolute or relative, but overall it's a well-specified tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides clear descriptions for both file_mask and relative_path, with 100% coverage. The description does not add any further detail about parameter formats, examples, or constraints, so it adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: finds files by mask, with the specific scope of non-gitignored files and a relative path. It also specifies the return type (JSON object with list), and the verb 'Finds' is appropriate. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file (content reading) and search_for_pattern (presumably content search).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (to locate files by name pattern) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like list_dir and search_for_pattern are not referenced, so the agent must infer the appropriate tool without clear guidance on when to prefer this over those.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (list of JSON objects with metadata and code snippets) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention error conditions, permissions, or performance implications. The verb 'finds' implies non-mutating behavior, but this is implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause adds value. It is concise without sacrificing essential information about what the tool does and what it returns.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and fully described parameters, the description sufficiently covers the tool's core function and return format. It lacks explicit usage scenarios and exclusions, but for a well-schema'd symbol-reference tool, it is adequately complete for an agent to select and invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a descriptive comment referencing find_symbol where applicable. The tool description itself adds no further parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. Cross-references to find_symbol provide contextual meaning but are embedded in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: finding references to a symbol at a given name_path. It specifies the output includes metadata and code snippets, distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_symbol (which finds definitions) or search_for_pattern (which searches text patterns).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly conveys when to use the tool (when you need to find references to a symbol), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Repeated references to find_symbol's parameter logic provide some context but no direct decision guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about relevance and avoiding repeated reads, but does not describe return format, error behavior, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied by the verb 'Read', but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the subsequent sentences provide essential usage guidance without any filler. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. It lacks details about parameter semantics (e.g., max_answer_chars) and potential error conditions, but these are partially addressed by the schema and output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a basic tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanations. It does not mention max_answer_chars at all, and only indirectly references memory_file_name through the phrase 'memory file name'. The schema already provides titles, but the description adds no additional meaning to the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Read the content of a memory file', clearly identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_file by specifying 'memory file', 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 Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('only be used if the information is relevant to the current task') and a when-not-to rule ('You should not read the same memory file multiple times in the same conversation'). However, it does not name alternative tools, so it misses the 'alternatives' part of a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does add a behavioral constraint (only on explicit user request), but it does not disclose the permanence of the deletion or any potential side effects. For a destructive operation, this is a notable absence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, with the first sentence providing the core action and the second adding usage guidance. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description lacks parameter semantics and does not address what happens if the memory file does not exist. The output schema may cover return values, but the input usage is not fully specified. Overall, it is minimally sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter, memory_file_name, with no schema description (0% coverage). The tool description only mentions 'memory file' and does not specify the expected format, path, or any constraints for the parameter. It adds little beyond the parameter name itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool deletes a memory file, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling memory tools (write_memory, read_memory, list_memories) by focusing specifically on deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states that deletion should only happen upon explicit user request, and provides concrete examples of such requests. This clearly delineates when to use the tool and guards against proactive deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a JSON object with top-level symbols, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe any potential side effects or limitations beyond the parameter schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage guidance and return value. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a relatively simple tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's role, when to use it, and what it returns. The slight gap is that it does not explicitly mention exclusion criteria or contrast with other tools, but overall it provides sufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema fully documents relative_path and max_answer_chars, so no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'get a high-level understanding of the code symbols in a file' and specifies the return of a JSON object with top-level symbols. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_symbol or read_file, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance: 'This should be the first tool to call when you want to understand a new file, unless you already know what you are looking for.' This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not name specific alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral detail: 'The inserted code shall begin with the next line after the symbol' and 'via the symbol's location.' However, it does not cover error handling or prerequisites (e.g., symbol must exist), leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a typical use case. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a code insertion tool with an output schema and fully described parameters, the description provides adequate context: it specifies the insertion point relative to the symbol definition and gives use cases. It does not mention error scenarios or relation to sibling insert_before_symbol, but these are not critical given the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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. The tool description itself adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema; the only extra context is the cross-reference in the schema to find_symbol definitions, which is not in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Inserts' and identifies the resource: 'body/content after the end of the definition of the given symbol.' It distinguishes from siblings like insert_before_symbol by specifying 'after' and clarifies typical use cases (class, function, method, field, or variable assignment).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear use case scenario: 'insert a new class, function, method, field or variable assignment.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context of symbol locations implies coordination with find_symbol.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the non-gitignored filtering, optional recursion, and JSON return format. This is sufficient for a simple read-only listing tool, though it could have been even more explicit about hidden files or symlink handling. The core behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every word adds value, defining the tool's scope, behavior, and return format concisely.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity, the presence of an output schema, and full parameter coverage, the description is largely complete. It covers the main purpose, filtering behavior, recursion option, and return type. It could have added a note about usage versus sibling tools or hidden files, but for a straightforward listing tool, this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning—it confirms the directory target and recursion option but does not go beyond what the schema already states. Baseline of 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all non-gitignored files and directories in a given directory, with optional recursion. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_file (search) and read_file (read contents). The return type (JSON object) is also specified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool: to enumerate directory contents, including the ability to recurse. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over searching or reading files. No exclusions are mentioned, but it earns a 4 for clear context without explicit alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns instructions and imposes a one-time-per-conversation limit, implying a read-only, side-effect-free operation. This is sufficient for a simple tool, though it could have explicitly stated non-modifying behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the key usage condition, and includes a critical behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail. It is exceptionally concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states when to call, the constraint, and what it returns. No additional context is needed for the agent to invoke this tool correctly. The output schema covers return value details, so the description need not elaborate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to be called when onboarding has not been performed, and it returns instructions. It uses a specific condition ('if onboarding was not performed yet') and a clear resource ('instructions on how to create the onboarding information'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'check_onboarding_performed', which likely serves a related but distinct function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear condition for usage ('if onboarding was not performed yet') and an explicit constraint ('at most once per conversation'). It does not mention any alternative tools or explicitly instruct the agent to first verify onboarding status with a sibling tool, which slightly limits guidance, but the condition itself is a strong usage indicator.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the core read operation and return text, but does not mention the max_answer_chars behavior where oversized chunks produce no content, nor line-range edge cases. The schema covers these details, so the description is minimally viable but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and front-loads the main purpose, then provides usage guidance, then states the return value. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, high schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains purpose, use cases, and return behavior, though a brief mention of the max_answer_chars truncation rule would make it fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it hints at chunking via 'or a chunk of it' but does not explain start_line/end_line semantics or max_answer_chars beyond what the schema already documents.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific action and resource: 'Reads the given file or a chunk of it.' It further distinguishes itself from sibling symbol-oriented tools by advising find_symbol/find_referencing_symbols for symbol lookup, making the purpose clear and unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states when symbolic operations should be preferred instead of read_file, giving named alternatives. This provides actionable guidance on when not to use the tool, satisfying the usage guidelines dimension.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only describes the thinking action itself. It does not state whether the tool has side effects, what it returns, or how the assessment should influence subsequent actions. This is partially mitigated by the simplicity of a no-op cognitive tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the usage guidance is concise with concrete examples. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, an output schema, and a simple cognitive purpose, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the trigger condition and the evaluation criteria, making the tool usable in a workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description accurately conveys that the tool acts on already-collected information, adding context beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to assess whether collected information is sufficient and relevant. It distinguishes itself from sibling thinking tools by focusing on 'collected information' rather than task adherence or completion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to call this tool: ALWAYS after a non-trivial sequence of search steps. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar reflection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It indicates this is a cognitive check, but it does not explicitly state whether it has side effects, what happens when called, or why the "always before code" rule matters. It is not misleading, but it under-specifies behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only three sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and then adds a clear usage condition and a specific rule. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameterless tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and a firm usage rule. It does not mention alternatives or explicitly say it is side-effect free, but the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema lower the burden.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is vacuously 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: "Think about the task at hand and whether you are still on track." It distinguishes itself from sibling thinking tools by tying the usage to a concrete action: "always be called before you insert, replace, or delete code."
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides strong contextual usage guidance: "Especially important if the conversation has been going on for a while" and a firm rule: "should ALWAYS be called before you insert, replace, or delete code." It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'list' strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the reference to read_memory clarifies that list returns memory references rather than content. It could mention scope or return format, but the basic behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary function, and the second sentence adds useful complementary guidance without redundancy or waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless enumeration tool, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and the logical next step (reading a chosen memory). The presence of an output schema handles return details, so no further explanation is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4; the description doesn't mislead or omit anything about inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('memories'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_memory by explicitly indicating that read_memory is for reading the content of a memory, 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 Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by saying 'Any memory can be read using the read_memory tool,' implying list_memories is for discovery/enumeration and read_memory is for retrieving content. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the complementary reference gives enough guidance for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Checks' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the sequencing context (call after activation, before work) adds behavioral insight. However, it does not explicitly state side effects (none expected) or what happens if onboarding is not performed, leaving some ambiguity. Still, for a simple status check, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise usage context. Every sentence adds value, and there is no filler. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, simple status check tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what it does and when to use it, and the output schema covers return values. No additional context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to add parameter information since none exist. It correctly omits parameter details, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks whether project onboarding was performed, using a specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('project onboarding'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'onboarding' which likely performs the onboarding, and the mention of sequencing clarifies its role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: always call before working on the project, after activating a project, and after calling the initial instructions tool. This is clear and actionable, though it does not explicitly name alternatives, the context is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly by disclosing DOTALL compilation, greedy/non-greedy quantifier advice, multi-line matching behavior, line-based return content, and file selection semantics including glob matching relative to project root. It also clarifies the return mapping at the end.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is somewhat long but tightly structured with clear sections for pattern matching logic and file selection logic. Each paragraph adds necessary operational detail without fluff, and key guidance is front-loaded in the first sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential usage, edge cases, performance pitfalls (greedy quantifiers), and file filtering nuances. It adequately explains how to restrict searches and what is returned, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the pattern matching implications of substring_pattern (e.g., DOTALL, leading/trailing .* being useless) and clarifying how relative_path and globs interact, which goes beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool offers 'flexible search for arbitrary patterns in the codebase' including non-code files, which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly recommending find_symbol or find_referencing_symbols when known symbols are sought.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says that symbolic operations like find_symbol or find_referencing_symbols should be preferred when symbols are known, providing an alternative usage path. It also gives guidance on when to use restrict_search_to_code_files and how to combine file selection restrictions for targeted searches.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/Raheem-19/serena-optimized'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server