Plane MCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are generally distinct, with clear separation via resource type (project, work item, cycle, module, comment, label, member, state) and action. The main overlap is set_work_item_status being a convenience wrapper around update_work_item, but descriptions clarify the purpose. Some pairs like list_projects/find_project could be confused but are well-defined.
Naming Consistency5/5
Names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_*, get_*, create_*, update_*, find_*, add_*, remove_*). Variations like get_work_item_by_number and set_work_item_status are logically extended forms, not inconsistent. The convention is uniform across all 38 tools.
Tool Count2/5
With 38 tools, the server is well over the 25+ threshold that typically indicates too many. While the scope is broad (multiple project management entities), the set includes many similar list/get/update tools per resource, making it feel heavy. A more streamlined set could consolidate some operations.
Completeness3/5
The server covers create, read, and update for most resources, plus work item status changes and assignment to cycles/modules. However, there are no delete operations for any entity (projects, work items, labels, cycles, modules, comments, states), which is a notable gap in CRUD coverage. Also missing get_label and get_comment, but these are less critical.
Average 3.5/5 across 38 of 38 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Edit an existing comment' and provides no context about effects (e.g., idempotency, failure behavior, permissions, rate limits) or what happens if the comment does not exist. This is a significant transparency 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only one short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It omits essential behavioral and parameter context, making it more under-specification than effective conciseness. Every word earns its place, but the content is inadequate.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema details, and a description that only states the primary action. It does not cover expected usage context, failure modes, or relationship to related tools, making it incomplete for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description adds zero parameter information. It does not explain that 'comment_html' contains the new content, or that 'issue_id' and 'comment_id' are identifiers. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 'Edit an existing comment' uses a specific verb ('edit') and resource ('comment'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_comment' (create) and 'list_comments' (read), making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'add_comment' or 'list_comments', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. This leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
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 mentions 'Add' which implies mutation, but does not disclose idempotency, validation rules, permissions required, or the effect on existing cycle membership.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It immediately states the action and the primary resource type.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations. The one-sentence description covers only the basic action, leaving the agent without parameter semantics, usage context, or behavioral expectations, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a minimal hint that work items are identified by UUID (implied for issue_ids), but gives no explanation of cycle_id or the optional project_id parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Add' and identifies the resource 'work items to a cycle', clearly distinguishing this from remove or listing operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'add_work_items_to_module', so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_work_items_to_module' or 'remove_work_item_from_cycle'. The description only states the action without contextual triggers or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the partial-update behavior, but leaves many questions unanswered: error handling for non-existent cycles, whether null values clear fields, permission requirements, and response format. This is insufficient 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 two short sentences with no redundant words. It effectively front-loads the action and adds a single key behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the tool has six parameters and no annotations. The description fails to provide usage guidance, parameter semantics, or error behavior, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation. It is not complete for a tool with this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. The statement 'Only provided fields change' gives a general rule but does not clarify the meaning of individual fields like project_id or start_date, nor the treatment of explicit null values (clear vs ignore). This creates ambiguity for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'a cycle', clearly identifying the action. The added clause 'Only provided fields change' distinguishes it from a full replacement update, though it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools. Overall, purpose is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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 sibling tools like create_cycle or set_work_item_status. It doesn't state prerequisites, such as the cycle existing, nor does it suggest alternatives. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only adds format hints for dates and owned_by, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., that this creates a persistent record), permissions required, required vs optional fields, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences with no fluff, which is concise. However, it is likely under-specified for a tool with six parameters; conciseness should not come at the expense of necessary context. It is not wastefully verbose but could be more informative within the same length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and zero schema coverage, the description is incompletely specified. It does not mention that name is required, how project_id relates to cycles, or any behavioral context like whether the cycle must belong to a project. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of input guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that dates use 'YYYY-MM-DD' format and owned_by is a member UUID, but it says nothing about the meaning of name, project_id, or description. The added value is partial and insufficient for the number of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create a cycle' with a clear verb and resource. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cycles, get_cycle, and update_cycle.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_project or create_module. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or decision criteria for choosing create_cycle.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions input constraints (color format, group enum) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, reversibility, or whether it creates global or project-specific states. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three short sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide critical parameter constraints. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundant 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?
The tool has 5 parameters and no annotations, yet the description only covers the purpose and two of the parameters. It omits context about required fields like 'name', the role of 'project_id', and any usage or behavioral context. Even with an output schema present, the description is insufficient for a 5-parameter mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description adds essential meaning for two of five parameters: 'color' is a hex string and 'group' is restricted to specific values. However, it does not explain 'name' (required), 'project_id', or 'description', leaving those parameters underdefined.
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 begins with 'Create a state.' which is a clear, specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_project or create_cycle by naming the resource 'state'. However, it lacks any scope qualifier (e.g., 'in a project'), so it's clear but not as rich as the highest-caliber examples.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_state or list_states. It only states the action and parameter constraints, leaving the usage context entirely to the agent's inference.
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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Remove' without explaining whether the action is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions. No side effects or consequences are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even with an output schema present, the description is too sparse for a mutation tool. It doesn't clarify when project_id is needed, what happens to the work item after removal, or any relationship to other cycle operations. With no annotations, this is a significant coverage gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no information about any of the three parameters (cycle_id, issue_id, project_id), and schema description coverage is 0%. The agent receives no additional meaning beyond the raw parameter names and types, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Remove' and clearly identifies the resource 'work item' and the target 'cycle', making it distinct from sibling tools like add_work_items_to_cycle or remove_work_item_from_module. The word 'single' adds precision about the operation's scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions that comment_html supports HTML and access has two values. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or expected response, leaving significant behavioral traits undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the action, and includes a concrete HTML example plus valid access values. Every sentence adds useful information without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully support invocation. It lacks context about the outcome, potential errors, or workflow fit, though an output schema exists. The tool is simple, but the description still leaves gaps around required parameters like issue_id and project_id.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains comment_html and access, but leaves issue_id and project_id unexplained. While issue_id is relatively self-explanatory, project_id's purpose and default behavior are not clarified, providing only partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Add a comment' and the target 'a work item', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_comment and list_comments. The verb-resource pairing is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_comment or list_comments. The description provides parameter examples but does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternative scenarios, so it offers no decision support.
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, but it only states the action and the color format. It does not mention permissions, idempotency, duplicate handling, or what happens after creation, leaving significant transparency 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 extremely concise, using two short sentences with no filler. Both sentences earn their place, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal, covering only the action and one parameter format. For a tool with four parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient context for reliable agent usage, though it is better than a complete tautology.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds a color format hint ('hex like #FF0000') but says nothing about the required name parameter or the optional project_id and description parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, most parameters remain undocumented.
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 'Create a label' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_labels and update_label. It is unambiguous and directly explains the tool's core function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical usage context. There is no sibling comparison or scenario-based 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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, how it handles pagination, whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens when project_id is omitted. This lack of detail leaves significant uncertainty for an AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that starts with the action verb and clearly states the object. It is free of unnecessary words or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has sibling tools with similar list functionality, the description is too sparse to be contextually complete. It lacks usage guidelines and parameter details, making it insufficient for an AI agent to understand when and how to invoke it correctly, despite the presence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not mention cycle_id or project_id at all. The agent only has the parameter names to infer meaning, and the optional project_id is not explained. No guidance is given on how these parameters affect the query.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List), the resource (work items), and the specific scope (assigned to a cycle). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_work_items, which likely lists all work items without cycle filtering. The verb and resource are explicit and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used when needing work items for a specific cycle, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_work_items or search_work_items. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and scope.
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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the key partial-update behavior ('Only provided fields change'), which clarifies that unspecified fields remain unchanged. However, it does not mention other important behaviors such as error handling, idempotency, or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with a valuable behavioral detail. There is no redundant or filler content, 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?
Despite having an output schema that covers return values, the description lacks essential context for an update operation with six parameters. It does not explain feature-specific nuances (e.g., what 'group' means, whether null clears a field), nor does it provide usage guidance, prerequisites, or edge-case behavior. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke this tool across diverse scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It does not describe any of the six parameters (name, color, group, state_id, project_id, description), offering only a generic statement about partial updates. The agent receives no additional semantic value beyond the parameter names and types in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a state' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (state), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_state, find_state, and list_states by using 'update' as the action.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_state or set_work_item_status. It only implies usage through the verb 'update', which is minimal and leaves the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only provides parameter constraints (status values, UUID types) but does not mention side effects, permissions, creation semantics, or return behavior. This is minimal transparency for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action and then adds essential parameter notes, 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?
With 8 parameters and zero schema description coverage, the tool description leaves many fields ambiguous, particularly date formats and project association. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter guidance, making it insufficient for complex or edge-case 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 description adds value by specifying the allowed status values and clarifying that lead/members are member UUIDs, which is helpful given the schema has no descriptions for these fields. However, other parameters like start_date, target_date, and project_id are left undefined, relying solely on the schema's type/title information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a module'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_module or list_modules. It is unambiguous and immediately informs the agent what action this tool performs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites, relationships to other entities, or scenarios where a different tool might be more appropriate. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage instructions.
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 does add useful context by stating that identifier must be uppercase and unique in the workspace and that network values map to 0=secret and 2=public. However, it omits information about authentication, idempotency, failure behavior, or side effects, leaving notable 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 concise and front-loaded, using only two sentences to state the purpose and key parameter constraints. Every sentence provides value without unnecessary repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has six parameters, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description is not complete enough for an AI agent to confidently invoke it. Although an output schema exists, the lack of guidance on when to use the tool and insufficient parameter semantics for half the parameters make this description inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the identifier format/uniqueness and the network value mapping, which are the least obvious parameters. However, it leaves description, project_lead, and default_assignee with only their titles, so the compensation is partial.
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 explicitly states 'Create a project', which is a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose clear. Although it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_work_item or update_project, the resource name itself provides that distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_project or find_project. The description only provides parameter constraints, with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Get' and offers no details about error handling (e.g., 404 if not found), required permissions, or whether project_id is mandatory for certain environments. This is a minimal read operation, but the lack of any behavioral caveats leaves the agent under-informed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence delivers the core purpose with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and appropriately concise for a simple getter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values are already documented. However, the description lacks usage context (when to pass project_id, behavior on invalid UUID) and sibling differentiation. It is minimally viable but leaves meaningful gaps 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.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description clarifies that module_id is the UUID, but the optional project_id parameter is completely unmentioned, leaving its purpose ambiguous. The description adds minimal value over the raw schema and does not compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('single module') plus identifier type ('by UUID'). It clearly distinguishes from list_modules and other get_* 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_modules or get_module_by_name (if it existed). The context is implied but not explicit, and there are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions.
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, but it only restates the core action. It does not mention whether removal is permanent, what happens if the work item is not found, whether project_id is needed for disambiguation, or any side effects. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes to meaning, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema and a simple purpose, so the description is minimally acceptable. However, with no annotations and no parameter documentation, it lacks details on edge cases, error behavior, and the role of project_id, making it complete only for the most basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter explanations. While parameter names (module_id, issue_id, project_id) are somewhat self-explanatory, the optional project_id is left unclear, and the description does not clarify relationships or constraints beyond the schema's basic types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (remove), the object (work item), and the location (module). It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_work_item_from_cycle by explicitly naming the module as the context, and 'single' clarifies it removes one item at a time.
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 add_work_items_to_module or remove_work_item_from_cycle. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that name/content are searched but omits crucial behavior: what happens when project_id is null (search scope), pagination, case sensitivity, result ordering, or return format. This is a significant gap for a search operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main action. It contains no redundant words and is easy to parse, but it may be too brief to fully support an agent's decision-making.
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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It lacks information on pagination, result ordering, scope when project_id is omitted, and field matching semantics. The presence of sibling list/get tools makes more contextual guidance necessary for correct tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that search is by 'name/content', which relates to the query parameter, but it does not explain the project_id parameter or its optional/default behavior. This is insufficient for a 2-parameter tool with no other documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('search') with a clear resource ('work items') and scope ('in a project by name/content'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_work_items and get_work_item by indicating full-text search capability.
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 phrase 'full-text search' implies a use case for finding items by text content, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. Sibling tools like list_work_items exist but are not cross-referenced, leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses an important behavioral trait: 'Only provided fields change.' This indicates a partial update (PATCH-like) semantics. However, with no annotations available, it does not cover other behaviors like permissions, error handling, idempotency, or whether the module must exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: two short sentences with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes the most essential behavioral note.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is minimal for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations. It lacks usage context, prerequisites, side effects, and any mention of how to validate input. The description covers only the basic action and one behavioral aspect, which is insufficient for a complex update operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds value by stating that only provided fields change, clarifying that optional parameters left null are ignored. However, it does not explain individual parameter purposes or formats, relying on self-explanatory names and schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Update a module.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing, and the added phrase 'Only provided fields change' clarifies the scope. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling update tools, but resource names make them distinct.
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, prerequisites, or expected context. The description only implies usage via the tool name and generic 'Update a module.' No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important patch semantics ('Only provided fields change') and how to clear list fields, which is valuable. However, it omits details about error handling, permissions, side effects, or the exact behavior when passing null versus omitting a field, leaving gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using three sentences that each provide distinct value: general purpose, status change mechanism, and clear-field behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and free of superfluous content, though it could be slightly more organized with sections or bullet points for readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema and is a straightforward update operation, the description covers the essential patch semantics and special cases (state, clearing lists). However, it lacks context about when to prefer this over sibling tools like set_work_item_status, and it does not address the meaning of many parameters. It is minimally complete but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 12 parameters with zero descriptions, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to only a few parameters: 'state' (target state's UUID), 'assignees'/'labels' (empty list clears). It does not explain the remaining nine parameters, and it remains ambiguous whether passing null differs from omitting a field. This is insufficient for the parameter count.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates any fields of a work item, using the specific verb 'update' and resource 'work item'. It also provides guidance on changing status via the 'state' field, which helps distinguish it from the sibling tool 'set_work_item_status', though it does not explicitly name that alternative.
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 gives useful how-to instructions, such as passing an empty list to clear assignees/labels and using the state UUID for status changes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_work_item_status, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and the identifier format (UUID). It does not mention idempotency, handling of duplicate items, effects on existing associations, permissions, or the role of the optional project_id. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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, clear sentence with no extraneous details. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes to understanding. This is ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature, three parameters, and close sibling relationships, the description is too sparse. It lacks operational context such as whether the module must already exist, what happens when adding duplicates, and how project_id relates. The output schema exists but does not offset the absence of these behavioral and parameter details.
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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description only clarifies that work items are identified by UUID. It does not explain the meaning or purpose of module_id, issue_ids (beyond being an array), or project_id. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Add') and clearly identifies the resource ('work items to a module') and the identifier type (UUID). It effectively distinguishes the tool from sibling operations like add_work_items_to_cycle and remove_work_item_from_module.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the intended use case: when a user needs to associate work items with a module. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context from the tool name and sibling tools makes the usage clear. There is no misleading guidance, so it earns a 4.
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 does communicate a key behavior: only provided fields are modified. However, it does not mention required project_id, error conditions, permissions, or any side effects, leaving 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the key partial-update behavior. There is no redundancy or wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, this description is too thin. It does not explain parameter semantics, usage prerequisites, or how the tool differs from alternatives like update_work_item or create_project. The existing output schema covers return values, but other contextual gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It only says 'editable fields' without explaining the five parameters (name, description, project_lead, default_assignee) or the requirement for project_id. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update a project's editable fields' with a specific verb and resource, and 'Only provided fields change' distinguishes this from full replacement or creation. It differentiates from siblings like create_project and get_project by emphasizing the partial-update scope.
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 phrase 'Only provided fields change' implies when to use the tool (for partial updates without affecting unspecified fields), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a work item' which implies a mutating action, but it does not mention side effects, return behavior, default state, idempotency, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, using bullet points to convey parameter formats and requirements. The most critical fact ('Only `name` is required') is front-loaded. Every line provides actionable information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the description is under-specified. It explains formats for only some parameters and omits context for others, such as what `parent` or `estimate_point` mean. While an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description is insufficient to fully guide correct usage for a tool with this many parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful details for priority (explicit enum values), state (UUID via list_states), assignees/labels (lists of UUIDs), and dates (format). However, it leaves several parameters undocumented in both schema and description: parent, project_id, estimate_point, and description_html. The coverage is partial, not complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a work item' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like update_work_item, list_work_items, and get_work_item. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by noting 'Only `name` is required' and pointing to helper tools (list_states, list_members, list_labels) for obtaining UUIDs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get a single cycle by UUID' and does not mention side effects, error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), or return format. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it does not explicitly confirm safety or provide additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no superfluous text; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema and only two parameters (one required), so complexity is low. The description adequately conveys the core action, but it lacks explanation of the optional project_id and does not mention potential error conditions or usage context. It is minimally complete but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by UUID' which clarifies cycle_id's format, but it completely ignores the optional project_id parameter. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and leaves the purpose of project_id ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'cycle', and specifies that it retrieves a single cycle by UUID. This distinguishes it from list_cycles which fetches multiple cycles, and from create_cycle/update_cycle which are mutations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a UUID and need one specific cycle, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Sibling tools like list_cycles exist but are not referenced, so the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.
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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the listing action, without addressing pagination, ordering, filtering, or permissions. While the operation is a read, that is not explicitly stated, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it efficient and appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description lacks parameter explanations and usage context. It covers the core purpose but leaves gaps in behavioral transparency and parameter semantics, which is notable given the absence of annotations and low schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the two parameters, so the description must compensate. It does not explain module_id or project_id beyond what the names imply, and the optional project_id is left undefined. The phrase 'assigned to a module' adds modest context, but not enough to clarify parameter roles or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'List the work items assigned to a module.' It specifies both the verb (list) and the resource (work items assigned to a module), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_work_items (all work items) and list_cycle_work_items (work items in a cycle).
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 through the tool name and phrasing, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like list_work_items or search_work_items. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided; usage is inferred, not directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It merely restates the operation (getting) without disclosing any behavioral traits such as read-only status, error handling, auth requirements, or whether the expand parameter affects response size. The description adds no context beyond the name itself.
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, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without fluff. It earns its place by being direct and readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits important context: the purpose of expand, the optional project_id, and how this tool differs from get_work_item_by_number. For a tool with 3 parameters and 0% schema coverage, this is incomplete guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It only clarifies that issue_id is a UUID, but does not explain expand (defaulting to 'state,assignees,labels') or project_id. The description adds minimal value for 3 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource, 'a single work item', and the method 'by its UUID'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_work_items and get_work_item_by_number, which retrieve by different criteria.
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 phrase 'by its UUID' provides clear context: use this tool when you have a work item's UUID. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_work_item_by_number when you have a numeric identifier.
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 does not mention what happens when project_id is null (which is allowed by the schema), default behavior, pagination, sorting, or permissions. The output schema exists but the description itself adds minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, with no unnecessary words or repetition. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it fails to address the optional/null behavior of project_id and does not guide the agent toward related tools or clarify output scope, leaving a moderate gap in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies that project_id identifies a project via the phrase 'a project's modules', but does not explain the format (e.g., UUID), optionality, or how null should be interpreted. Minimal added value over the schema's param name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'project's modules' with output detail 'with their UUIDs'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_module (specific module) and list_module_work_items (items within a module).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case: when you need to list modules for a project. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.
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 behavioral disclosure burden. The term 'look up' implies a read-only operation, and the example clarifies the number format. However, it does not disclose what the response contains, whether an error occurs for invalid numbers, or how project_id affects behavior—leaving notable 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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and includes a helpful example. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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, the description covers the core lookup purpose, but lacks an output schema and annotations. It does not explain the optional project_id parameter, return value format, or error behavior, making it only partially complete for a tool with two parameters.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. The example '391 for TRAVELXS-391' effectively explains sequence_id as the numeric part, but project_id's purpose is only hinted at via the prefix in the example, not explicitly stated. This provides partial but incomplete parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Look up a work item by its human number' with a concrete example that disambiguates from ID-based lookups. It specifies both the verb ('look up') and the resource ('work item'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_work_item which likely use internal IDs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the user knows the human-readable number (e.g. 391 for TRAVELXS-391), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_work_item or search_work_items. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so the usage is only implied.
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 must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does so by noting case-insensitive matching and returning None when no match is found. These are non-obvious behaviors that help the agent understand the tool's semantics. It does not mention potential errors or the role of project_id, but for a simple lookup, the key behaviors are covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is a model of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description addresses the primary lookup behavior and case-insensitivity. However, it omits the purpose or effect of 'project_id', which is a meaningful gap for a two-parameter tool. This prevents the description from being fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'name' parameter by indicating case-insensitive matching, but it says nothing about 'project_id', which is an optional parameter with unknown semantics. Since half of the parameters are undocumented both in the schema and description, the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool finds a state by name, uses case-insensitive matching, and returns it or None. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_states (which lists all states) and create_state/update_state (which modify states). The verb 'find' and resource 'state' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving a single state by name, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_states, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, which meets the 'implied usage' benchmark but lacks clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use direction.
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 burden of disclosing behavior. The word 'list' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and 'all comments' specifies the scope. The description adds useful context by indicating the operation is non-destructive and returns all comments associated with the specified work item, which is sufficient for a simple list 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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without waste. It earns its place by clearly stating the action and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks detail on parameters (especially project_id) and any behavioral nuances like sorting, pagination, or authentication. The output schema likely covers return values, so that gap is mitigated, but the parameter gap remains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only hints at issue_id via 'work item' and does not mention project_id at all. The description fails to explain the meaning or optionality of project_id or the format of issue_id, leaving the agent with incomplete parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List all comments on a work item.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('comments') with a clear scope ('on a work item'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_comment and update_comment.
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 context of use is implied: it lists comments for a work item. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_comment or update_comment, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description does not mention the required issue_id parameter or how to provide it, though that is implied by 'work item.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description implies a read-only operation via 'List' and indicates the return fields, but it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose behavior like pagination, ordering, or handling of null project_id.
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 action and immediately conveys the resource and output. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, return values are documented elsewhere. The tool is simple (one optional parameter), but the description does not clarify the behavior when project_id is null or whether all cycles are returned, leaving a minor completeness gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (project_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description references 'a project's cycles', which implies project_id identifies the project, but does not explain the parameter's format, whether it is required, or what happens if null is provided. The description only minimally compensates for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List), the resource (a project's cycles), and clarifies that cycles are sprints and that the response includes UUIDs and dates. This distinguishes it from get_cycle which retrieves a single cycle.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: this tool lists cycles for a project. It does not mention alternatives like get_cycle for a single cycle, but the usage is unambiguous given the tool name and description. No exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' and states the return includes UUIDs, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior around the optional project_id (e.g., what happens if omitted) or any auth/rate-limit considerations, so it is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the purpose efficiently, earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. However, the optional project_id is not explained, which is a notable gap. Overall, it is mostly complete but leaves a key ambiguity for a low-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on project_id. 'A project's labels' implies project_id selects a project, but it doesn't mention that the parameter is optional or what the default behavior is, leaving ambiguity. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('List a project's labels') and provides context by explaining the UUIDs are needed to tag work items. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_label and update_label, which are mutations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: to fetch label UUIDs before tagging work items. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the context is sufficient for a simple list operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of partial update, but omits other important aspects such as whether the label must exist, authorization requirements, or side effects. This is a minimal but non-trivial disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two short sentences, with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with the critical partial-update detail, making every word earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated) and the simple nature of the tool, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the essential partial-update behavior, though it could have been enhanced by noting the required label_id or referencing create_label for alternative use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that only provided fields change, which is essential for understanding the optional parameters. However, it does not explain the meaning of fields like project_id, which could be ambiguous in the context of a label update.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Update a label', providing a clear verb and resource. The additional phrase 'Only provided fields change' distinguishes it from full-replace operations and clarifies partial update semantics, setting it apart from sibling tools like create_label.
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 usage context is implied—use this when you need to modify an existing label. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., create_label for new labels) or provide exclusions, leaving the decision to the agent without direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are available, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The term 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention error behavior, permissions, or what 'full details' encompasses. The existence of an output schema covers return structure, but additional side-effect context is absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the action, resource, and key parameter constraint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and an output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks any mention of how this tool differs from find_project, which is a minor completeness gap given the sibling context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only defines project_id as a string, with no description. The tool description adds the critical semantic that this parameter is a UUID, providing meaning beyond the schema. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('project'), and the scope ('single project by its UUID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects (plural) and find_project (which may imply search behavior).
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 use when you have a UUID and need detailed project info, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like find_project or list_projects. No clear guidance on when not to use this tool is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the outputs (UUIDs, names, groups) and the intended prerequisite workflow, but does not disclose behavior for omitted project_id, pagination, or ordering. It adds some context but not fully rich behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the core function, and provides actionable workflow guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main purpose and use case. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists, and it addresses the key workflow need (mapping status names to UUIDs).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter, project_id, with no description (0% coverage). The description implies its meaning by saying 'a project's states,' but does not explicitly explain the parameter or the default/null behavior. It provides marginal compensation beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List a project's states (statuses) with their UUIDs, names, and groups.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing the mapping use case.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Call this first to map a status name like "In Progress" to its UUID before creating/updating work items.' This gives a clear when-to-use context, though it does not mention alternative tools like find_state for searching a single state.
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 transparency burden. It clearly identifies the operation as a list (read-only) and specifies output contents, and the UUID usage hint adds context. However, it does not explicitly state that it returns all members, whether pagination applies, or if any authorization is required, so some behavioral details are left implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by actionable guidance. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned and why. A minor gap is not explicitly saying it returns all workspace members or contrasting with find_member, but these are not essential for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly focuses on output usage instead.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List workspace members', then enumerates the returned fields (UUIDs, emails, display names). It also states the intended downstream use of the returned UUID, making the tool's role unambiguous and distinct from sibling find_member.
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 second sentence gives concrete guidance: use the returned member UUID for fields like assignees, owned_by, and lead. This establishes when the tool is useful, though it does not explicitly compare with find_member or state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the key behavior—setting state by UUID—and notes the wrapper nature, which clarifies that it's a targeted update. The mapping hint for list_states adds useful behavioral context. It lacks details on permissions or response shape, but for a simple status setter, the core behavior is well disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences deliver the core action, the relationship to an alternative, and a practical usage hint. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure front-loads the primary purpose. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutation tool with an output schema and 3 parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what it does, how to use it, and a mapping prerequisite. The only minor gap is no explicit mention of how project_id factors in, but the description is otherwise complete for typical usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'state' parameter expects a UUID, not a label, and directs users to list_states for conversion. However, it does not elaborate on 'issue_id' or 'project_id', which are left to the schema's basic definitions. This partial compensation is adequate but not comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Change a work item's status by setting its state UUID.' It specifies the resource (work item) and the exact mechanism (state UUID), and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'update_work_item' by labeling itself a convenience wrapper. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that leaves no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly guides when to use this tool: 'Convenience wrapper around update_work_item' implies use this for status changes specifically, and 'Use list_states to map a status name... to its UUID' provides a direct prerequisite and alternative path. This gives clear 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.
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 behavior: case-insensitive matching against name or identifier, which goes beyond the tool name. It does not state return format or pagination, but the existence of an output schema reduces that burden. The description adds useful behavioral context without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains zero waste. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states what it does, the second gives usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It covers the search behavior, the input meaning, and the typical use case. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that 'query' is matched against the project name or identifier, adding semantic meaning beyond the parameter name alone. With a single parameter and this explanation, the semantics are clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('projects'), and clearly defines the matching criteria ('name or identifier contains `query`', case-insensitive). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects (which lists all) and get_project (which fetches by exact ID).
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 phrase 'Handy when you only know the project name' provides clear context for when to use this tool, implying partial information. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling tool set.
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. 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects. It also adds context about discovering identifiers, which is useful. It does not mention pagination or auth, but for a simple list tool with no parameters, this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences. It front-loads the core action ('List all projects in the workspace') and immediately follows with a practical usage note. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, a clear list action, and presumably an output schema (as indicated), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and what users can expect to extract (IDs, names, identifiers), which is sufficient for a low-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'list' with resource 'all projects in the workspace', making the operation clear. It also specifies that it returns project IDs, names, and identifiers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_project or find_project which target specific projects.
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 states, 'Use this to discover project IDs, names, and identifiers', providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but its purpose is well-defined for listing all projects. A more explicit comparison with get_project or find_project would merit a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals key behaviors: automatic pagination (so all items are fetched), expand semantics (defaulting to state/assignees/labels), and the default project ID behavior. With no annotations, these details help the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond what the schema shows.
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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds essential operational detail without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity, the presence of an output schema, and the clear explanations of pagination, expand, and default project ID, the description covers the necessary context for using this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains both parameters: expand controls which related objects are inlined (with a default), and project_id can be omitted to use the default project. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions (0% coverage), though it doesn't enumerate all expand values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists work items in a project, with automatic pagination. The verb 'list' and resource 'work items' are specific, and it is distinguished from sibling search tools by the scope 'all work items in a project'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for listing all work items in a project, with pagination and expand behavior. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like search_work_items or list_cycle_work_items, but the project-wide scope 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses case-insensitive substring matching on email/display name and that matches are returned for UUID selection. It lacks details on no-match behavior or result limits, but given the output schema exists and the tool is simple, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that front-load the core behavior and include a clear purpose for the return value. Every word adds value with no redundant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete for agent invocation. It explains what the tool searches, how it matches, and why the result is useful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining that `query` is matched case-insensitively against email or display name. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's bare parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Find' targeting members, with specific criteria 'email or display name contains query (case-insensitive)'. This distinguishes it from list_members and other sibling tools, making the tool's 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case: find a member by searching email/display name and retrieve the correct UUID. It does not explicitly compare with list_members or state when not to use, but the intended context is clear and sufficient for an agent.
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:

[![Plane-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Rockysingh116/Plane-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Rockysingh116/Plane-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Plane-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Rockysingh116/Plane-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Rockysingh116/Plane-MCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Rockysingh116/Plane-MCP'

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