MCP OpsBridge

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v2.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool is clearly namespaced by service (github_, calendar_, db_, slack_) and performs a distinct action. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even similar actions like calendar_query_events and calendar_get_event_details are clearly differentiated.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern of domain_verb_noun (e.g., github_search_issues, db_execute_query, slack_send_message). The standalone approve_action still fits the verb_noun convention. No naming style mixing.
Tool Count2/5
At 30 tools, the server exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the tools are grouped by service, the overall count is heavy for a single MCP server and could overwhelm agents. Splitting into separate domain servers would be more appropriate.
Completeness3/5
Calendar, database, and Slack domains have full lifecycle coverage (CRUD and actions). However, the GitHub domain is read-only—no create/update/merge operations—which is a notable gap for an ops bridge. Also missing some actions like Slack message deletion or calendar availability beyond free slots.
Average 3.4/5 across 30 of 30 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 6 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
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention return format, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it uses the GitHub Search API. The label inconsistency also undermines transparency about expected inputs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, making it easy to parse. However, the phrase 'by query, state, and label' is not accurate given the schema, so the sentence does not fully earn its place due to potential misinterpretation.
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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and parameters. It does not mention response structure, pagination, or the meaning of 'limit'. The description is too minimal to fully guide an agent in using this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides descriptions for repo and query, with 50% coverage, but the description adds little beyond that. It mentions 'state' and 'label' but does not explain state values or handle the missing label parameter. The 'limit' parameter is entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches issues in a GitHub repository, with a specific verb (search) and resource (issues). It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_get_pull_requests by focusing on issues. However, the mention of 'label' as a filter is misleading because the schema does not have a label parameter; this could confuse the agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit contexts, exclusions, or sibling tool comparisons are provided. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer its appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes 'requires approval', which is useful, but it omits critical details such as whether approval is synchronous, whether the attendee is added immediately or after approval, and any permissions or error conditions. The relationship to the sibling 'approve_action' tool is not clarified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and a key constraint ('requires approval'). It is concise and easy to parse, though it sacrifices depth for brevity. No fluff or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, the approval workflow, error handling, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'calendar_update_event' and 'approve_action'. The presence of a sibling 'approve_action' suggests a multi-step process that is entirely undocumented.
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 67% (event_id and email have descriptions). The description adds little beyond the schema, but it clarifies the high-level purpose. The 'calendar_id' parameter has a default but no description, and the tool description does not explain its semantics. Since coverage is reasonably high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Add an attendee to an existing event'. This is a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('attendee' + 'event'), and the phrase 'existing event' distinguishes it from event creation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'update_event' tool, which could also modify attendees, so it's not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'calendar_update_event' or 'approve_action'. The mention of 'requires approval' hints at a workflow but doesn't explain the approval process or when this tool is preferred. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic read operation and does not reveal pagination behavior (despite the cursor/limit parameters), ordering, or what 'recent' means. This lack of detail could lead to incorrect assumptions about the returned data.
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 unnecessary words. It is concise and directly states the tool's action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, pagination via cursor, and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use limit/cursor for iteration, what the response structure looks like, or any constraints. A more complete description would mention pagination and return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters (channel, limit, cursor), so the schema already provides clear meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema offers, which matches the baseline expectation.
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 ('Get') and resource ('recent messages from a Slack channel'), which clearly conveys the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like slack_get_thread (which targets threads) and slack_list_channels (which lists channels), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like slack_get_thread or slack_send_message. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'accessible' but does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, whether archived channels are included, or the return structure. It adds little beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, short sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the returned data looks like, whether it handles pagination, or any behavioral caveats. For a list tool with minimal schema richness, the description is under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for 'limit' (max channels to return) and 'cursor' (pagination cursor). The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so a baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents parameters.
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+resource+scope: 'List accessible Slack channels', clearly indicating the tool lists Slack channels the user can access. It is distinct from sibling tools like slack_get_channel_history and slack_send_message, but does not explicitly call out alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of pagination or prerequisite auth. The description implies usage from the name, but offers no explicit when-to-use 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?
The description claims to list 'all' branches, but the input schema includes a limit parameter with a default of 30, meaning the tool may return only a subset. This inconsistency is not disclosed. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency and fails to mention pagination, output format, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is structurally efficient, though the word 'all' is slightly misleading given the limit parameter. The brevity earns a high score for conciseness, but it sacrifices necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the limit parameter's impact, the return format, or potential errors. For a simple list tool, it provides just enough to understand the basic function but falls short of what an agent needs to invoke it correctly in all 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?
Schema description coverage is only 50% (repo is described, limit is not). The description adds no information about the limit parameter, its default value, or its effect on results. It 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 clearly states the action (list) and the resource (branches in a repository). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like github_list_repos or github_get_commits by focusing specifically on branches.
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 needing to list branches, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It is minimally acceptable but lacks clear contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the high-level purpose. It does not explain how availability is determined, what the output looks like, how time zones or defaults are handled, or whether it respects calendar permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and object. There is 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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the one-line description is insufficient. It does not address return value format, default behavior, timezone considerations, or edge cases, leaving the agent under-informed.
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 descriptions cover time_min, time_max, and calendar_ids, but duration_minutes lacks a description. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, and the 75% schema coverage is not compensated by any additional explanation.
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 clearly identifies the resource ('mutually available time slots across calendars'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calendar_query_events (which queries events) and calendar_list_calendars (which lists calendars) by focusing on availability across multiple calendars.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where a different calendar tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, error conditions for invalid thread timestamps, rate limits, or authentication requirements. This is minimal coverage for a tool that reads potentially large thread data.
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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently states the tool's purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, the description lacks usage guidance and return-value details, and with no annotations or output schema, the overall context is thinner than ideal. It is minimally viable but leaves room for improvement regarding thread specifics and alternative tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the schema already explains the meaning of 'channel', 'ts', and 'limit'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema, which is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'messages in a thread', which distinguishes it from channel-level operations like slack_get_channel_history. However, it does not explicitly mention that a thread is identified by channel and ts, though this is implied by the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like slack_get_channel_history or slack_send_thread_reply. The intended use case (retrieving thread messages) is implied by the name and description, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'requires approval', which hints at a mutation gate, but does not explain effects such as the message being visible to channel members, irreversibility, or required permissions. For a mutation tool sending external messages, this is insufficient.
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 unnecessary words. 'Send a message to a Slack channel (requires approval)' is concise and to the point.
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 send-message tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits the thread_ts parameter's behavior, any details about the approval workflow, and what happens after sending. With no annotations or output schema, more context would help an agent, but this is acceptable for a basic 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, as each parameter (text, channel, thread_ts) has a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states 'Send a message to a Slack channel (requires approval)', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly identifies the action but does not differentiate from the sibling tool slack_send_thread_reply, which also sends a message (in a thread). Lacks explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling slack_send_thread_reply exists for thread messages, but the description does not mention it or offer any context. The '(requires approval)' note is a constraint, not a usage guideline.
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 default state filtering (open), limit defaults, pagination, or what exactly 'diff statistics' entails. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about behavior beyond the basic read 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the core function. It is concise with no filler, but it could include more useful details without becoming verbose, so it does not achieve a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the return value looks like, how parameters interact, or any behavioral nuances. The lack of output schema means the description should cover return semantics, but it only mentions diff statistics vaguely.
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 only 33% (only 'repo' is described). The tool description does not explain the 'limit' or 'state' parameters, nor does it add meaning beyond their names and schema defaults. The mention of 'diff statistics' gives some context but does not compensate for the lack of parameter clarification.
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 gets pull requests in a repository with diff statistics, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pull requests in a repository'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_get_commits, github_list_branches, and github_search_issues by focusing on pull requests and adding the diff statistics detail.
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 needs pull requests with diff statistics, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tool alternative is mentioned, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but it does not explicitly state this or mention error behavior or permission requirements. It is not misleading, but adds no extra behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word adds value: 'Show' plus 'columns and types for a table' fully encapsulates the tool's purpose. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity and full parameter schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema, so the description should ideally be more explicit about the return format or the fact that it returns column metadata. It does not mention the default schema behavior, which is left to the schema. For such a simple tool, it is acceptable but leaves some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents them well. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, such as value formats or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('columns and types for a table'), clearly indicating that this tool describes table structure. It is distinct from sibling tools like db_list_tables or db_execute_query, though it does not explicitly name them. It lacks detail on schema scope but 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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The description does not explain when to choose this over db_execute_query or db_list_tables, leaving the agent to infer from context. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose without any caveats, such as whether system tables are included, whether permissions are needed, or what the return format looks like. For a read-only tool, it does not explicitly confirm safety or side-effect-free behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core functionality immediately. There is zero redundant information 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?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of return values, whether it includes views/system tables, or any edge cases. While not a mutation tool, a bit more context about the result set would improve completeness.
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 already documents the 'schema' parameter with a clear description and default value, giving 100% coverage. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, simply restating that tables are listed 'in a database schema'. This matches the baseline for schemas with full 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 uses a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'all tables in a database schema'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like db_describe_table (which describes a single table) and db_execute_query (which runs arbitrary SQL).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of enumerating tables before querying or avoiding direct information_schema queries. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description, not 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic function. It does not mention read-only nature, default branch behavior, limit enforcement, pagination, or response format. The schema shows some defaults (branch=main, limit=10), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It directly states the tool's purpose and is easy to parse quickly. This is a model of conciseness, though it may be too brief in other dimensions.
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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should provide more context about return values, edge cases, or when to use it relative to siblings. It only covers the basic action, leaving users without information on pagination, sorting, or potential errors. The description is insufficient for a production tool with multiple siblings.
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 67%: repo and branch have descriptions, but limit is undocumented. The tool description does not clarify the limit parameter or add any syntax/format details. It only restates that it works on a branch, which the schema already conveys. Thus, the description fails to compensate for the missing limit 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get commit history for a branch.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like github_get_pull_requests and github_get_file_contents by focusing on commit history scoped to a branch. 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 implies usage when commit history is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools (e.g., github_get_pull_requests) or any exclusion criteria. There are no alternatives mentioned, so the usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.
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 restates the basic action. It does not mention how directory contents are returned, handling of binary files, error conditions, or any rate-limit concerns. The phrase 'file or directory' adds slight scope but no deep 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?
A single sentence directly conveys the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.
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 read tool with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, since there is no output schema, the description could usefully specify return format (e.g., file content encoding, directory listing shape) to be fully complete. It is not inadequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for repo, path, and branch. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('contents of a file or directory from a repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_get_commits or github_search_issues. It leaves no ambiguity about what is retrieved.
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. It does not mention that it is for raw file/directory access, nor does it exclude use cases better served by github_get_commits, github_list_branches, or other siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like whether authentication is required, what 'recent commits' means (e.g., count or list), or any potential rate limits. The description only restates the tool's purpose without adding context beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no superfluous words. It efficiently communicates the core function.
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 one-parameter tool, the description lists the key statistics but leaves 'recent commits' ambiguous (count? date?). Without an output schema, the return structure is not fully specified. The description is adequate but has gaps about the exact nature of the results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'repo' has a clear description with an example format. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.
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 'repository statistics' and enumerates the covered metrics (stars, forks, open issues, recent commits). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_get_commits, which returns raw commits, and github_list_repos, which lists repositories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_get_commits or github_get_pull_requests. The description simply states what it does, leaving the choice of tool implicit rather than explicitly directing the agent.
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 adds a key behavioral trait: 'requires approval', which is not apparent from the schema. However, it omits critical details such as return value, rejection behavior, or what the approval process entails, leaving significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly crafted sentence that clearly states the core action and a notable constraint. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler or redundant wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's six parameters and lack of output schema, the description provides no details about return values, calendar_id behavior, or the approval workflow. It leaves the agent largely guessing about what happens after invocation. The description is too sparse to be considered complete for this tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 83%, with only calendar_id lacking a description. The description's 'optional attendees' simply restates the schema's optionality without adding new meaning. It does not clarify calendar_id defaults or time formats beyond what the schema already conveys, so it adds minimal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('calendar event'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like calendar_update_event or calendar_delete_event. The mention of 'optional attendees' adds further specificity, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
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, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The only hint is 'requires approval', but this is not elaborated and does not explain when approval is needed or suggest alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context with 'auto-approved' (no approval needed) and 'logged' (audit trail). However, it omits mutation side-effects, return behavior, error conditions, or prerequisites, leaving gaps for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and resource. The parenthetical 'auto-approved, logged' adds valuable behavioral context without unnecessary length. Every word contributes.
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 2-parameter insert tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. It explains the operation and adds two behavioral properties. However, it does not cover return values, failure modes, or when to choose this over other DB tools, which leaves some gaps for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with 'table' and 'data' both described. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Insert a new row into a table'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like db_update_rows, db_delete_rows, and db_execute_query. The core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as db_execute_query or db_update_rows. The only hint is 'auto-approved, logged,' which addresses workflow but not selection criteria. While the name implies insertion, explicit usage guidance is missing.
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 add that the tool operates on the 'authenticated user' and returns 'metadata', which provides some context. However, it does not detail return format, pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements beyond user scoping. For a read-only list operation, some behavior is self-evident, so this is a minimal but acceptable 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 a single sentence of eight words that states the core functionality without unnecessary detail. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the main action and resource.
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 lack of an output schema, the description should explain return values more clearly. It mentions 'metadata' but does not specify what fields are returned or any pagination behavior. The tool is relatively simple, so the description is not severely inadequate, but it leaves gaps for the agent to discover.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema covers sort and type with descriptive enums. The 'limit' parameter lacks a description, yet its name and numeric constraints make its meaning clear. With 67% schema description coverage, the description does not need to significantly compensate, and the schema provides adequate 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 'List repositories for the authenticated user with metadata' uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('repositories'), and clarifies scope ('for the authenticated user'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_list_branches and github_search_issues, which focus on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or explicitly state that this should be used for listing the user's own repositories as opposed to searching or retrieving stats. The usage context is only implied by the purpose statement.
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 disclosure burden. It does disclose that approval is required, which is a non-obvious operational trait, but it leaves the approval flow, return behavior, and partial-update semantics unspecified. This is a minimal but non-empty 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 a single sentence with the verb and object front-loaded. Every word adds context, and the parenthetical approval note is compact and informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema covers field semantics, but the description lacks details about the approval mechanism, the return value, and whether unspecified fields are preserved. Since there is no output schema and this is a mutation tool with an approval dependency, the description leaves important operational context unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 83%, and the schema already documents parameter semantics, including the required event_id and ISO 8601 formats for times. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so it neither enhances nor conflicts with the schema baseline.
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 ('update') and a specific resource ('existing calendar event'), clearly distinguishing it from create/delete/query sibling tools. The parenthetical 'requires approval' adds a distinctive operational constraint. No vague or misleading language.
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 for modifying an existing event and notes the approval prerequisite, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention calendar_create_event for new events or how approval should be obtained.
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 discloses the destructive effect ('removes all rows') and a safety trait ('double approval required'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is permanent/irreversible or that it may require elevated privileges, which are important behavioral traits for a truncate operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with an em-dash clarification. Every word adds value, and the critical 'double approval required' note is included. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to skim.
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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose (truncate all rows) and a critical behavioral nuance (double approval required). It does not describe return values, but these are likely unnecessary for a truncate operation. However, it could have briefly mentioned that this is distinct from deleting rows or dropping the table, which is not present.
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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions for 'table' and 'cascade'. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Truncate' and resource 'a table', and explains the scope by noting it 'removes all rows'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like db_drop_table (which removes the table structure) and db_delete_rows (which removes specific rows).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that truncate is more efficient than deleting all rows or that it cannot be filtered. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool reference.
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 entire burden. It discloses that approval is required, which is a meaningful behavioral trait, but it does not explain the approval process, whether the reply is sent immediately upon approval, or what happens if approval is denied. This is a partial disclosure that leaves important 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 concise sentence that immediately communicates the core action and a key constraint. It contains no redundant words or irrelevant details, making efficient use of the space.
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 and leaves critical context unexplained, particularly regarding the approval workflow and the relationship with approve_action. With no annotations and no output schema, the agent lacks information about return values or failure behavior, which is necessary for a complete understanding of the tool's 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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema contains, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 ('Send a reply') and the specific resource ('in a Slack thread'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool slack_send_message for direct messages. The addition of 'requires approval' provides extra context without obscuring the primary purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The thread-specific phrasing implies it is for replying to existing threads, and the mention of approval hints at a workflow, but there is no guidance on when to select this tool over slack_send_message or how it relates to approve_action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses that deletion is 'irreversible' and that 'double approval required', which are critical behavioral traits beyond the simple act of deleting. However, it doesn't elaborate on what the approval process entails or potential side effects like attendee notifications, leaving some 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 conveys purpose and critical warnings without any fluff or redundancy. Every word contributes value, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
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 2-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description captures the essential action and the two most important caveats (approval and irreversibility). It does not mention the calendar_id default or return values, but these are secondary to the core destructive behavior and the schema provides partial 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 description contains no parameter information, relying entirely on the schema. With only 50% schema coverage (event_id documented, calendar_id omitted), the description fails to compensate for the missing calendar_id semantics, such as its default value or purpose.
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 'Delete a calendar event' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like calendar_update_event and calendar_create_event. The parenthetical caveat about double approval and irreversibility adds context without confusing the core purpose.
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 explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like calendar_update_event or calendar_query_events. The warning about double approval and irreversibility implies caution but does not specify usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns detailed info including attendees and description, but does not mention potential errors (e.g., event not found), authentication needs, or whether any side effects occur. As a read-only operation, the lack of mutation-related disclosure is less critical, but the description remains somewhat minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It directly conveys the tool's purpose and key return content, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema. The description mentions attendees and description but does not give a complete picture of the returned details (e.g., start time, location, status). Without an output schema, the description should more fully enumerate what 'detailed information' includes, but it covers the most notable fields.
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 describes both parameters (event_id and calendar_id) clearly, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information about a single event, with the specific inclusion of attendees and description. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_query_events (which queries events) and clearly indicates the resource (event) and action (get details).
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 'a single event' implies this tool is for retrieving one event by ID, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like calendar_query_events or calendar_find_free_slots. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation via 'List', which is useful, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, handling of canceled events, or any authentication/rate-limit concerns. This is a moderate level of transparency 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, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. However, it leaves out details like response structure, default behavior for max_results, and what event fields are returned, making it adequate but not comprehensive.
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 already describes time_min, time_max, and calendar_id, covering 75% of parameters. The description's 'date range' only restates the time parameters without adding new meaning. It does not explain max_results or any parameter nuances beyond the schema, leaving a minor 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 uses a specific verb 'List', names the resource 'events', and specifies the scope 'in a date range from Google Calendar'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_get_event_details (single event) and calendar_find_free_slots (availability).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving events within a time window, but it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of other calendar tools. No exclusions or alternative tool suggestions are provided, so the usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose two behavioral traits: 'auto-approved' and 'logged', which are useful. However, it doesn't mention whether the update is irreversible, how many rows might be affected, or what the response contains, leaving gaps in transparency for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, front-loads the core action and object, and uses a parenthetical for additional context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 required parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, so the description should clarify return behavior or side effects. It does not mention return values, error cases, or the risk of large-scale updates. While 'auto-approved/logged' adds safety context, the description alone is not fully complete for an agent to know what to expect after invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't clarify types, relationships, or usage nuances for parameters like 'where' or 'params'.
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 ('Update rows') and the resource/scope ('in a table matching a WHERE clause'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like db_insert_row and db_delete_rows. The parenthetical '(auto-approved, logged)' adds a distinctive purpose-related detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for updating rows based on a condition, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like db_execute_query or db_delete_rows, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.
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 a behavioral trait ('double approval required') which is valuable given no annotations. However, it omits other important behavioral aspects such as irreversibility, potential locking, or data loss risks. With annotations absent, more disclosure could be expected for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a key behavioral note. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: it states what the tool does, the type of SQL, and the approval requirement. It could mention the irreversible/destructive nature of DDL, but the low complexity leaves only a minor gap.
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 fully describes the single 'query' parameter (100% coverage), so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description adds little beyond restating the allowed DDL operations, which is also present in the schema description. The baseline of 3 applies.
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 identifies the tool as executing schema migrations (ALTER/CREATE/DROP), specifying the verb 'Execute' and the resource 'schema migration'. It distinguishes itself from db_execute_query by emphasizing 'structural change', 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for structural DDL changes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like db_execute_query. The 'structural change' qualifier offers some guidance, but there is no explicit when-not or mention of alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose an important trait (approval required) and implies destructive action, but omits details like whether deletion is permanent, whether affected rows are reported, or any error/rollback behavior. This is partial but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes a crucial caveat (approval). It contains no fluff or redundant phrasing, making it highly scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values or side effects more fully. It does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., number of rows deleted) or when to prefer this over truncate/drop. The approval note is a positive signal, but the overall context feels incomplete for a destructive 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 fully describes all three parameters (table, where, params) with examples and types. The description adds little beyond restating the WHERE clause concept. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to compensate, but it also offers no extra semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Delete rows from a table matching a WHERE clause'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling deletion tools like db_truncate_table and db_drop_table by emphasizing the conditional WHERE clause.
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 by indicating this is for deleting specific rows based on a condition ('matching a WHERE clause') and notes a critical usage requirement: 'requires approval'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., truncate for all rows), so it stops short of fully explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (confirm/deny) and the triggering response types, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or return format. This is a minimum viable level of 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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and includes a practical usage hint, achieving high conciseness.
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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage context. It does not explain return values or consequences, but the tool is straightforward enough that this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds a small amount of context for approval_id by mentioning the response types, but overall it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Confirm or deny') with a clear resource ('pending action that requires user approval'), and it explicitly names the response types ('pending_approval or pending_approval_2 responses') it responds to, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Use this to respond to pending_approval or pending_approval_2 responses'). It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but given the sibling tools, none directly compete, so the guidance is sufficient.
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 of disclosing destructive behavior. It clearly states 'permanently removes table and data' and 'double approval required', which are critical constraints. This is strong transparency for a destructive operation, though it could also mention irreversibility explicitly (already implied by 'permanently').
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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a meaningful parenthetical warning. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is removed, permanence, and the approval requirement. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the impact, though it does not mention return values or error handling, which are not critical here.
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 covers both parameters (table and if_exists) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 via the verb 'Drop' and the resource 'table', and adds 'permanently removes table and data' to specify scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like db_truncate_table (keeps table) and db_delete_rows (removes specific rows).
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 wording implies this tool is for permanently removing entire tables, but it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or recommend alternatives. Sibling tools like db_truncate_table or db_delete_rows are not referenced, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states read-only, which is a key safety trait, but doesn't mention result format, error handling, or blocking of non-SELECT statements (though that's in the schema).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, direct, no filler.
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 description is sufficient for a simple query tool: states purpose and read-only constraint. The schema covers parameters. No output schema needed as query results are implicit. Minor gaps like multiple statements or returning large datasets are not critical.
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 describes both parameters (query and params) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond 'read-only', so baseline 3.
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 identifies the verb 'execute', the resource 'SQL query', and the scope 'read-only' against PostgreSQL, distinguishing it from write/schema sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The read-only scope implies it's for SELECT queries, and sibling tools cover writes, but no explicit alternatives are named. It gives clear context that this is for reads only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the scope is specified. However, it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., no modifications), return format, or potential limitations like pagination. For a simple list tool, this 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, succinct sentence that covers the essential action and scope. No filler words or redundant detail.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does: returns all accessible calendars. It could mention return fields (e.g., calendar IDs, names), but the complexity is low enough that the description is complete for selecting and invoking the 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?
There are 0 parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters that do not exist, and the schema already confirms no inputs are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('all calendars accessible by the authenticated user'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_create_event or calendar_query_events. It is 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys the context: it lists all calendars accessible to the currently authenticated user. This implies when to use it (e.g., to see available calendars before querying events), though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The context alone is clear enough for a basic listing tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![MCP-OpsBridge MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SaADii09/MCP-OpsBridge/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SaADii09/MCP-OpsBridge)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![MCP-OpsBridge MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SaADii09/MCP-OpsBridge/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SaADii09/MCP-OpsBridge)

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/SaADii09/MCP-OpsBridge'

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