alterios-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.4
Disambiguation5/5
All tools have clearly distinct purposes. Even similar ones like call_readonly vs call_write are differentiated by mutability, and the various view-related tools target different aspects (data, simplified data, entities, fields).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with the 'alterios_' prefix and verb_noun structure. Verbs vary appropriately (get, list, call, etc.) but are predictable and aligned with resource actions.
Tool Count4/5
21 tools is slightly above average but well-scoped for a comprehensive platform API. Each tool addresses a distinct function, and there is no obvious bloat.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a wide range of operations—read, write, metadata, config, views, reports, script execution. Minor gaps exist for explicit CRUD on specific resources like forms or views, but generic write services fill those gaps.
Average 2.6/5 across 21 of 21 tools scored. Lowest: 1.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 147 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 17, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only vaguely hints at reading a view but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which could be concise, but it is underspecified and lacks useful information. It does not earn its place as it adds little value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, 1 required, no schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or any other essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the 5 parameters (view_id, limit, offset, profile, project_id), leaving their meaning entirely undefined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Read a view', which is a specific verb and resource, but the phrase 'as Stimulsoft usually sees it through get-data-simplified' is confusing and unclear. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like alterios_view_data or alterios_view_entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions 'plan or apply' and 'optional process smoke'. It does not state whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur (e.g., process creation, data modification), authorization needs, or rate limits. The ambiguity of 'plan or apply' adds confusion rather than transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 14 words, which is concise but lacks structure. For a tool with 30 parameters, a more structured format (e.g., bullet points summarizing key inputs and behavior) would improve usability without much added length. The current brevity sacrifices informativeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (30 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a likely complex output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'plan or apply' means, what the output looks like, how to use the tool step by step, or how it fits with sibling process tools. A comprehensive description is necessary for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), and the description mentions only three parameter categories (task form, diagram, script refs, process smoke) out of 30 parameters. It does not explain the purpose of key parameters like dry_run, plan_id, profile, or the many optional fields. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it plans/applies a BPMN scenario with task form, diagram, script refs, and optional smoke, which gives a general idea. However, the verb 'plan or apply' is ambiguous (are they two modes?), and it does not distinguish from sibling tools like alterios_upsert_bpmn_diagram or alterios_start_process. A more precise verb like 'creates' and explicit differentiation would improve clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the large number of sibling tools, this omission severely hinders appropriate tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It mentions 'plan or apply' and 'dry_run' parameter implies testing mode, but doesn't explain behavior when dry_run is false or what side effects occur (e.g., creation, modification). Output schema exists but is not detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It attempts to pack multiple concepts ('plan or apply', 'report plus openId form tab scenario') but sacrifices clarity. Could be improved with clear segmentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given high complexity (22 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to cover the tool's purpose, usage, or parameter roles, leaving the agent unable to invoke it correctly.
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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage) and the tool description adds no parameter explanations. With 22 parameters, including required ones like source_view_id, target_form_id, and report_name, the agent has no clues on their meaning or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Plan or apply a report plus openId form tab scenario backed by a Project Database source view' is vague and does not differentiate this tool from siblings like alterios_upsert_report or alterios_patch_form_tabs. It fails to specify the primary action (create a tab) and only mentions 'plan or apply' without clarity.
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. The description provides no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. With many sibling tools, the agent cannot determine 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?
No annotations exist, so description must carry burden. It mentions 'returns readback' and 'requires explicit write gates' but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or implications of 'plan' vs 'create'. Ambiguity reduces transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but poorly structured: 'Plan or create' is an awkward phrase and the sentence order doesn't prioritize key info. Could be more precise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters and an output schema, the description fails to provide enough context. It doesn't explain the return value, parameter roles, or how 'plan' and 'create' differ. Incomplete for an 8-sibling tool set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter documentation. With 7 parameters and no explanations, the agent has no guidance on what each parameter means.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Plan or create an Alterios comment' which gives a general action but is ambiguous about whether it plans or creates. It distinguishes from siblings like alterios_write_journal but lacks specificity about the comment's context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The mention of 'explicit write gates' is a prerequisite, not usage context. No when-not or sibling differentiation provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only says 'diagnose separately' without disclosing whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or side effects. This is insufficient for an AI agent to infer safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not use bullet points or sections to organize information about the tool's behavior. It is minimal yet unhelpful for a complex tool with many parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool having 13 parameters and an output schema, the description provides no context about return values, what 'diagnosing separately' entails, or how to interpret results. It fails to cover essential aspects for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no explanations for any of the 13 parameters (e.g., form_id, sample_rows, expected_mode). The agent has no information to correctly fill parameters beyond their names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Diagnose report data, template, form binding, PDF, and browser viewer evidence separately.' This vaguely indicates the tool examines different report components, but the verb 'Diagnose' is unclear and does not specify the output or action. It fails to distinguish from siblings like 'alterios_report_full' or 'alterios_validate_printable_render'.
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. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or conditions. With many sibling tools, lack of differentiation is a significant gap.
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 present, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'safe read-only', which is minimal. It does not explain side effects, required permissions, or what 'probe' does (e.g., list available routes or test connectivity).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise, but it is under-specified. Conciseness should not come at the expense of essential information. The structure lacks any meaningful details.
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 two parameters and an output schema, the description should explain the purpose of parameters and the output format. It provides none of this, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (profile, project_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description provides no explanation of these parameters, their purpose, or how they affect the tool's behavior. This is a critical failure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Probe the known safe read-only Alterios REST routes' indicates a discovery action but is vague. It does not specify what probing entails or what information is returned. While it distinguishes itself as specific to read-only routes, it fails to clearly articulate the tool's primary function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like alterios_rest_get or alterios_call_readonly_service. The description lacks context about when to probe vs. call, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only says 'return known functions,' omitting whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, or any permissions needed. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks structure and does not earn its place by providing sufficient information; it is too brief for a tool with one parameter and an output schema.
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 one parameter and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output's content, the role of the parameter, or how this tool relates to the many sibling tools. Significant gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single boolean parameter 'read_only'. The description adds no explanation of what the parameter controls (e.g., whether it filters by read-only status). This leaves the agent without guidance on parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Return known Alterios script-service functions' states a specific verb (Return) and resource (script-service functions), but 'known' is ambiguous and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like alterios_discover_readonly or alterios_call_readonly_service. The purpose is clear but vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as alterios_discover_readonly or the call tools. The description lacks any context about usage scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It implies mutation (create/update) and a read-back side effect, but it does not disclose permissions, reversibility, or any constraints. The mention of 'plan' is unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the action but lacks structure for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and only a brief description, the tool is severely underspecified. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of information about the input parameters and overall behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no explanation for any of the 9 input parameters (e.g., name, dry_run, profile, template, report_id, etc.), and schema coverage is 0%. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool can 'plan or create/update an Alterios report and read it back through report full.' While it identifies the resource (report) and actions (create/update/read back), the verb 'plan' is ambiguous and it does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like alterios_patch_report_template or alterios_create_report_tab.
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 alterios_report_full or alterios_patch_report_template. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions 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 provided. Description only says 'Read' which implies non-destructive, but omits pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or any side effects. Minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Only one sentence, but it contains a typo (listandcount) and is vague. Conciseness is good, but structure and clarity are lacking.
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?
Although an output schema exists (but not shown), the description does not mention return value structure. The tool has many siblings, and the description provides no help for selection. Incomplete for the context.
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 has 0% coverage (no property descriptions). The description does not explain any parameters, leaving the agent to infer from names only. With 5 parameters, this is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it reads users via a specific route, but does not distinguish from similar list tools like alterios_list_groups or alterios_list_profiles. The wording is awkward (listandcount) and lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context on prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or behavior on validation failure. 'Validate' implies read-only, but that is not confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks sufficient detail to be useful. Minimal description leaves many gaps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 optional parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description does not explain how to use the parameters or what the output schema contains. The agent lacks key information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the four parameters (form, form_id, profile, project_id) or their roles in the validation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'validate' and the resource 'Alterios form' against a 'blocking UX contract', but 'blocking UX contract' is jargon that is not explained, and there is no differentiation from numerous sibling validation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like alterios_validate_module_contract, alterios_validate_script, or other validate tools. The agent is left to guess the specific context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'preflight and readback' but does not explain what these entail, whether they trigger side effects, or what permissions are needed. The 'allow_destructive' parameter indicates potential destructiveness, but this is not clarified in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but at the expense of clarity. It front-loads the action and resource but omits critical details that would make it useful. It sacrifices comprehensiveness for brevity, resulting in under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested object, no annotations, output schema present), the description is severely incomplete. It provides no explanation of return values (despite output schema), no guidance on preflight vs. execute behavior, and no clarification of the 'readback' concept. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% — the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no meaning to parameters: it mentions 'by UUID' (referring to script_id) but fails to explain args, dry_run, profile, project_id, expected_name, expected_active, or allow_destructive. The agent cannot understand parameter roles from this description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the action ('plan or execute'), resource ('manual Alterios script'), and identifier ('by UUID'). It also hints at two modes (preflight and readback). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like alterios_fast_live_bulk_manual_script or alterios_validate_script, which share similar purposes.
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. The description states the tool can plan or execute but does not provide criteria for choosing between these modes or mention when to use other tools (e.g., validate scripts, bulk execution).
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?
Only mentions 'destructively delete' and 'dangerous workflow' but lacks details on irreversibility, side effects, confirmation steps, or how the plan workflow differs from direct deletion. With no annotations, more transparency is expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is too concise for the tool's complexity. It lacks structure (e.g., separating plan vs delete modes) and fails to convey essential information without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 20 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description is drastically under-specified. It provides no context on the workflow, safety checks, or how to integrate with sibling tools, leaving the agent with almost no actionable information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no information about any of the 20 parameters (8 required). Parameters like selected_content_ids, expected_count, and delivery_evidence are left entirely unexplained.
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 identifies the tool's action: 'destructively delete' or 'plan' for 'explicitly reviewed content rows'. It distinguishes from siblings like alterios_delete_user and alterios_delete_role by specifying content rows and a dedicated dangerous workflow.
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 siblings, or when to plan vs execute. Does not explain prerequisites or safety measures despite being a destructive tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description fails to disclose behavioral details like side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what 'plan' vs 'execute' does. With 22 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should carry more disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but lacks structure. Could be expanded into separate plan/execute modes without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given high complexity (22 params, 7 required, nested objects), the description is severely incomplete. Does not explain modes, prerequisites, or outcomes despite presence of output schema.
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 coverage is 0%. Description only hints at 'selected content rows' and 'script', leaving 20 parameters unexplained. Does not compensate for missing schema descriptions.
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?
Verb 'Plan or execute' with resource 'one reviewed manual script for selected content rows' is specific. Distinct from sibling 'alterios_execute_manual_script' by including planning. Could be clearer about what planning entails.
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 vs alternatives. Description does not specify conditions for planning vs execution or compare to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions 'plan or apply' without detailing what these phases entail, whether the tool is destructive, requires approval, or what side effects occur. Parameters like dry_run and require_clean_health imply safety checks, but these are not disclosed in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 12 words, which is concise but insufficient. It lacks the detail needed for a tool with 13 parameters, sacrificing utility for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 3 required nested parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the workflow, parameter usage, or output, leaving the agent ill-equipped to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation for any parameter. It does not mention required parameters (scenario_tool, scenario_args, etc.) or complex objects like delivery_evidence, leaving the agent without necessary guidance.
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 (plan or apply) and resource (one approved scenario) within the fast live-write workflow. It distinguishes from bulk write tools in the sibling list, but does not explicitly differentiate from other write tools like alterios_rest_write or alterios_call_write_service.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or comparison to sibling tools such as alterios_fast_live_bulk_delete or alterios_rest_write.
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?
Annotations are absent, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'Read' implying non-destructive, but no explicit safe behavior, auth requirements, or pagination details are disclosed. The route phrase is unclear and adds no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but not effectively concise; it uses unclear jargon ('typed listandcount route') and omits necessary details. It does not front-load key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain pagination, filtering, or the purpose of profile and project_id, leaving major gaps for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of the four parameters (limit, offset, profile, project_id). Their names suggest functionality but are not clarified, leaving the agent without crucial semantic guidance.
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?
Description clearly states it reads content types, using verb 'Read' and resource 'content types'. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like alterios_list_fields or alterios_list_groups, which are also list operations on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It vaguely describes mutating requests and write gates but fails to explain key behaviors: what dry_run does, what 'allow_destructive' means, what happens on execution, or the nature of the response. Given the tool's write nature, much more context is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences and contains no obvious fluff. However, for a tool with 9 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is severe under-specification. Concision is valuable, but not when it omits essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 params, required fields, nested objects, output schema) and the complete lack of parameter descriptions, the brief description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the role of dry_run, plan_id, or how the write gates work. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides no explanation of any of the 9 parameters (body, path, method, params, dry_run, plan_id, profile, project_id, allow_destructive). Agents have zero semantic guidance beyond the parameter names.
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 plans or runs mutating REST requests, which distinguishes it from read tools like alterios_rest_get. However, it does not differentiate among the many sibling write tools (e.g., alterios_fast_live_write, alterios_call_write_service), leaving ambiguity about when to use this generic REST write tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Execution requires explicit write gates,' providing a precondition. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative write tools, nor does it specify when not to use it or what factors might favor a sibling.
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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Plan or create/update' without disclosing destructive potential (e.g., overwriting existing diagrams), authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with 11 parameters and complex behavior. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 11 parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. The agent cannot determine how to use the tool effectively or what it returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 11 parameters (e.g., dry_run, diagram_id, project_id). The agent has no semantic understanding of how to fill these fields.
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 the action (plan or create/update) and resource (BPMN diagram) clearly. It distinguishes from sibling upsert tools by specifying the target type, but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool over others.
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 vs alternatives, no prerequisites, no context for 'plan' vs 'create/update', and no mention of when to set parameters like diagram_id or project_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the need for write gates but fails to explain side effects, destructiveness, idempotency, or what 'plan' entails. The existence of an output schema is not referenced, so agents cannot infer return behavior without inspecting 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (2 sentences) and avoids verbosity, but it is under-specified. It lacks critical details, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly. Conciseness should not come at the expense of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high complexity (13 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, param dependencies, or usage scenarios, leaving the agent with inadequate context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, yet the tool description provides no explanations for any of the 13 parameters. Parameter names like 'mname', 'dry_run', and 'allow_unmanaged_update' remain ambiguous, offering no semantic value beyond their titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Plan or add/update an Alterios view field'. The verb 'upsert' is specific and the resource 'view field' distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on other entities like views or fields. However, it could be more precise about what constitutes a 'view field' and how it differs from similar tools like alterios_upsert_field.
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 mentions that 'Execution requires explicit write gates', which hints at a prerequisite, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., alterios_upsert_view_entity or alterios_upsert_field). No information on when not to use it or context for selection is given.
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 exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'plan or apply' hinting at a dry_run parameter, but it does not describe side effects, required permissions, or what happens upon actual application. The output schema exists but is not mentioned. The description lacks critical behavioral context 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is not overly verbose and fits within a short span. However, it could be improved by front-loading key action words and separating the 'plan' vs 'apply' modes more clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 29 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain how to use the tool, what each parameter does, or what the output represents. The existence of an output schema somewhat mitigates but does not compensate for the lack of parameter guidance. The description is too sparse for a complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate. However, it only vaguely references 'content type, fields, view, forms, and group' without mapping to specific parameter names (e.g., module_name, field_name_prefix, fields) or explaining their meaning. Many parameters (e.g., plan_id, profile, icon_ids) are left unexplained, making the tool difficult to use correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to plan or apply a full Alterios material module covering content type, fields, view, forms, and group. The verb 'plan or apply' and resource 'material module' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like alterios_upsert_field or alterios_upsert_view that handle individual components, so it lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as individual upsert tools. The description implies it is for a full module but does not state prerequisites, limitations, or disqualifying cases. This omission makes it harder for an AI agent to decide correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Lacks annotations, so description must disclose behavior. Only mentions 'plan or start' and 'verified', but does not explain what verification entails, whether it executes immediately, or if it is asynchronous. No details on side effects or consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but sacrifices essential details. It is not efficiently informative given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 20 parameters, 7 required, no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and a minimal description, the tool is severely incomplete. The agent lacks critical context to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions. The description adds no parameter information despite 20 parameters, including complex ones like 'delivery_evidence'. The agent cannot understand parameter purposes from the description alone.
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?
Description states it plans or starts a BPMN process for selected content rows, which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'alterios_start_process', which likely starts a single process; the 'bulk' and 'live' aspects are implied by the name but not explained.
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 vs. alternatives like alterios_start_process. No prerequisites or scenarios provided. The agent is left to infer usage from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. 'Read' implies read-only, but no further behavioral details such as permissions, side effects, or data scope are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short (3 words) but not concise in a helpful way. It omits essential information and fails to efficiently communicate tool capabilities.
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 an output schema being present, the description provides no information about return values or tool behavior. Inadequate for a list tool with no annotations.
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?
Description does not explain the two parameters (profile, project_id). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds no value beyond schema names.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Read' and resource 'Alterios project groups', providing a specific action on a defined resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like alterios_list_projects or alterios_list_objects.
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. With many sibling list tools, lack of usage context leaves the agent unable to distinguish appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'inventory'. No mention of read-only nature, permissions, side effects, or return format. For a listing operation, minimal transparency is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) but at the expense of completeness. It could be considered efficient if it captured essential details, but it omits critical parameter and behavioral info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and the presence of sibling icon tools, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct usage. The output schema exists but description does not reference it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about their meaning, usage, or defaults. This is a critical gap.
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 it inventories the 'project-local MCP icon registry' and optionally 'elFinder file-manager icons', clearly indicating a listing function. It distinguishes from sibling icon tools like resolve, export, and ensure by implying it is a read-only inventory, but does not explicitly differentiate.
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 the many sibling tools, especially those also related to icons (resolve, export, ensure). The description lacks any contextual cues or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it reads roles, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or whether the list is paginated. The mention of a route is insufficient for behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but includes unclear jargon ('typed security listandcount route') that could be simplified. It is not overly verbose but could be clearer.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given five parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks information on pagination, search semantics, filtering, and return value structure, making it insufficient for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention any of the five parameters (limit, offset, search, profile, project_id) or their purpose, providing no added value over the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it reads Alterios roles, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like alterios_list_groups and alterios_list_users. However, the phrase 'typed security listandcount route' is somewhat opaque, slightly reducing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Requires explicit write gates' suggests a safety check but does not explain what write gates are, whether operations are destructive, or if dry_run (default true) relates to planning. Missing key behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two short sentences), but this conciseness sacrifices completeness. It is front-loaded but lacks necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain input semantics, return values, or context among many write siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about any of the 9 parameters, including the required content_id and field_values. This leaves the agent without guidance on parameter usage.
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 'Plan or update fields on an existing Alterios content row,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, 'plan' vs 'update' is not further differentiated, and the tool is one of many write-related siblings, so clarity is good but not maximal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like alterios_fast_live_write or alterios_rest_write. The phrase 'requires explicit write gates' hints at a safety requirement but does not specify conditions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'requires explicit write gates' and 'dry_run' exists as a parameter but is not explained. No details on side effects, permissions, or return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is efficient but overly minimal. It could be expanded to include key parameter behaviors without becoming verbose.
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 14 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain how to use parameters like 'dry_run' or 'allow_unmanaged_update'. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for 14 parameters, and the description provides no interpretation or guidance for any parameter. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Plan or create/update an Alterios menu group.' This verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like alterios_upsert_user_group.
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. The mention of 'explicit write gates' is a behavioral note, not usage context. No comparison with sibling tools is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'security write', lacking details on what actions are destructive, whether it's idempotent, or what the 'plan' mode does.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits essential information, making it inadequately structured for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, output schema, security sensitivity), the description is too sparse. It lacks context about dry-run behavior, parameter interactions, and return value structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the 9 parameters, leaving the agent without understanding of their purpose.
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 specifies the action ('plan or create/update') and the resource ('Alterios user group'), and mentions security classification. However, 'plan' is ambiguous and not fully differentiated from sibling tools like alterios_upsert_group.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. Sibling tools are not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It only hints at write permission requirements but fails to disclose other behaviors such as whether the operation is destructive, rate limits, or what happens on conflict. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence), which aids readability, but it lacks structure and fails to front-load critical details. It is under-informative for a tool with 10 parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no param descriptions, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values or process nuances, relying on the output schema (unseen) but lacking context for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the agent sees only parameter names from the schema. The description adds no meaning, violating the baseline expectation that it should compensate for low 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 states the tool plans or creates/updates an Alterios view entity, which is a clear verb+resource. It also mentions a requirement (write gates). However, it does not fully distinguish from sibling tools like alterios_upsert_view or alterios_upsert_view_field, missing an opportunity to clarify what a 'view entity' is in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a prerequisite ('explicit write gates') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Without differentiation among sibling upsert tools, an agent may struggle to select the correct one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool creates a milestone but omits behavioral traits such as whether dry_run previews effects, what authentication is needed, or any side effects. The parameter 'dry_run' with default true hints at a preview mode, but this is not disclosed in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it very concise. However, it sacrifices essential information for brevity. While front-loaded with the core action, it lacks details about parameters, usage, and behavior, which are necessary for a functional tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters (none required) and an output schema, the description needs to explain the purpose and interactions of these parameters to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. The current one-sentence description is incomplete, leaving the agent to guess how to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain the purpose of 'state', 'title', 'due_on', 'dry_run', 'description', or 'dotenv_path'. Without any parameter context, the agent cannot understand how to set each field meaningfully.
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 identifies the action as 'Plan or create a Gitea milestone used as a sprint for the private workboard,' clearly specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like gitea_create_work_item and gitea_list_sprint_tasks by noting the 'sprint' and 'private workboard' context. However, the phrase 'Plan or create' is ambiguous about whether it performs one or both actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions for creation, or compare it to related tools like gitea_create_work_item or gitea_list_sprint_tasks. Usage is only implicitly conveyed as 'for the private workboard.'
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, description carries full burden. It mentions 'plan or create' and dry_run default true, but does not disclose mutation behavior, permissions, or what happens on actual creation. Lacks important behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single sentence, concise but lacks any structure or bullet points. It is adequate but could be more informative without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described, the tool definition is highly incomplete. The agent would have no understanding of parameter semantics or return values without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter explanations. Among 10 parameters, only title, body, and labels are somewhat guessable; ref, dotenv_path, milestone_id etc. are unexplained. No value added beyond schema titles.
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 the tool creates a Gitea issue work item, using specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like gitea_create_sprint or gitea_list_work_items, and 'work item' is ambiguous (issue vs task).
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 vs alternatives like gitea_create_sprint or other issue creation tools. Description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use.
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, and the description only mentions 'redacted private', hinting at data sensitivity but without disclosing side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It does not clarify if the operation is read-only or has destructive potential.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is adequately structured but insufficiently 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?
Given the optional parameter and existence of an output schema, the description lacks context about the workboard concept and what 'missing values' entails. It does not sufficiently explain the tool's role within the broader system of sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% coverage, and the description does not mention the 'dotenv_path' parameter or its purpose, leaving the agent without necessary context to set it correctly.
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 returns 'redacted private Gitea workboard configuration and missing values', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'local_workboard_config' by specifying Gitea context, though it could be more precise about what constitutes 'missing values'.
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 such as 'local_workboard_config'. The description fails to mention prerequisites, when not to use, or distinguish from similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., modifies work item), idempotency, permission requirements, or what dry_run does despite default true.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence. However, it lacks necessary detail for a tool with 12 parameters, sacrificing completeness for brevity.
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 high parameter count, zero schema description coverage, and no annotation, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values (output schema exists but unmentioned) or provide context needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter documentation in schema. The description does not explain the meaning, format, or constraints of any of the 12 parameters (e.g., role, scope, findings, dry_run).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action: 'plan or append a structured agent report to a local private work item'. It identifies verb and resource but is ambiguous about whether it plans or appends. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like local_workboard_init or gitea_create_work_item.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or conditions under which this tool is preferred over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'plan or upsert' but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or whether it is destructive. The dry_run parameter hints at a planning mode but is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, which is concise but too short given the tool's complexity. It front-loads the main action but lacks structure for a tool with 25 parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 25 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an absent output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or how parameters interact, making it insufficient for correct agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions required parameters (form_id, script_id, scope, title, icon_id) but does not explain their meaning or how they relate to the action. The 25 parameters are largely left undocumented.
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 it plans or upserts a manual script action on a page, element, or row value with verified id bindings. It differentiates from execute-related siblings. However, 'plan' and 'verified id bindings' are vague and not further explained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings like alterios_execute_manual_script or alterios_fast_live_bulk_manual_script, the description does not provide context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says the configuration is 'redacted' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to provide sufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriately concise with no extraneous words.
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 presence of one optional parameter and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'redacted' means, the structure of the output, or how the 'profile' parameter affects the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'profile' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention or explain it. The parameter's purpose, allowed values, and impact remain completely unspecified.
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 specifies the verb 'Return' and the resource 'Alterios configuration and missing required values', clearly indicating the tool's output. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'alterios_service_catalog' or 'alterios_report_full'.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or contexts where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only mentions planning vs uploading and saving, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, error states, or return value format. Insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no fluff, but lacks structure. Could be improved with bullet points or separate sections.
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 high parameter count (13), no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. Output schema exists but not leveraged.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with 13 parameters. The description does not explain any parameter meaning beyond their names. Agent must infer from names, which is unreliable.
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 the action ('plan or upload a file') and the target ('into an Alterios file field and save it on a content row'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools (only upload tool). However, the phrase 'plan or upload' could be clearer.
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 vs alternatives, no conditions, no exclusions. The description lacks context for agent decision-making.
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 but only mentions 'redacted settings and missing values,' hinting at data limits without detailing safety, required permissions, or whether the tool is read-only. This is insufficient for a tool without annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it lacks necessary details. It could be slightly longer without being verbose to cover missing parameter info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (not shown) which reduces the need to describe return values, but the description is still incomplete regarding the parameter and usage context. Basic purpose is stated, but not sufficient for confident use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single optional parameter 'profile' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain its meaning. An agent cannot infer what the parameter does or how to use it.
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 returns 'configured Alterios instance profiles with redacted settings and missing values.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling listing tools like alterios_list_groups or alterios_list_write_plans.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like alterios_tool_profile for specific profiles. The description does not specify prerequisites or use cases.
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 labels the operation as 'Read', implying no side effects, but it does not elaborate on behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the meaning of 'listandcount'. With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose important safety or performance characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence (21 words), which is concise. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity, omitting critical details about parameters and usage. The structure is adequate but not optimal for agent decision-making.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has five parameters with no schema descriptions and an output schema (not detailed), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output structure, pagination behavior, or filter semantics, leaving significant gaps in understanding for the agent.
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 input schema includes five parameters (limit, offset, search, profile, project_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter semantics, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names. While names like 'limit' and 'offset' are common, the purpose of 'search', 'profile', and 'project_id' in this context is unclear.
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 'Read Alterios user groups', indicating a read action on a specific resource. However, the phrase 'through the typed security listandcount route' is jargon and may not clarify the tool's purpose for all agents. The tool name itself suggests listing, and the description adds some specificity but does not differentiate from similar siblings like 'alterios_list_groups'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'alterios_list_groups' or 'alterios_list_users'. The description does not indicate any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context without support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. Only 'Read' is stated, implying no side effects, but nothing about permissions, error handling, or behavior when the report is missing. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 14 words, which is concise. It front-loads the core action and resource. However, the phrase 'encoded report filter route' is confusing and reduces clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, return values are covered, but the description fails to explain parameters or provide usage context. It is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the description does not explain any parameter beyond implying report_id. The meaning of 'profile' and 'project_id' is omitted entirely, forcing the agent to guess.
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 'Read a full Alterios report by ID', which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, the phrase 'through the encoded report filter route' introduces jargon that may not be clear to all agents. It distinguishes from siblings like alterios_view_data but does not explicitly differentiate.
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 its many siblings (e.g., alterios_view_data, alterios_get_form). No prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It notes 'creates workflow side effects', implying mutation, but does not disclose if actions are destructive, reversible, or require special permissions. The dry_run parameter defaults to true, which is not mentioned, leaving uncertainty about default behavior.
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 very concise at two sentences, but the second sentence is vague ('Execution creates workflow side effects'). While succinct, it sacrifices useful detail that could be added without much length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It does not cover parameter semantics, use cases, or expected outcomes. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of input guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 10 parameters. It does not explain the purpose of key fields like name, params, dry_run, diagram_id, etc. This is a critical gap given the high parameter count.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it plans or starts a BPMN process, which is a specific action on a clear resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like alterios_list_process_tasks or alterios_complete_task. However, the dual 'plan or start' could be ambiguous, slightly reducing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not explain the difference between 'plan' and 'start', nor when each is appropriate. 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. It adds only that execution requires explicit write gates, but fails to disclose other important behaviors like side effects, idempotency, or what happens if the view already exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. However, the second sentence about write gates could be more integrated, and the overall brevity leaves gaps.
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 output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, with 11 parameters and 0% coverage, the description is far from complete. It lacks details on parameter relationships, defaults, and usage scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters, but it does not. It mentions no parameter purpose, leaving the agent reliant solely on the schema titles, which are insufficient for 11 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 clearly states the verb (plan or create/update) and resource (view). It mentions 'execution requires explicit write gates,' which hints at authorization, but does not fully distinguish from sibling tools like alterios_upsert_view_field.
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 only states what the tool does and mentions write gates. It provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., alterios_upsert_view_field or alterios_upsert_form), nor does it specify when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., file creation), error conditions, permissions required, or performance implications. The description is too brief to inform the agent about the tool's behavior 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, leaving key aspects unexplained. It could be expanded to include parameter hints or usage context without becoming wordy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no description of them, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what each parameter does, provide examples, or mention any output schema details. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for 6 parameters, and the description adds no parameter information. The agent has no way to understand the meaning or required format of 'profile', 'template', 'report_id', etc. This is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool renders a Stimulsoft report in Chromium and exports it as PDF. The verb 'render' and 'export' specify the action, and 'printable Stimulsoft report' identifies the resource. This differentiates it from siblings like 'alterios_validate_stimulsoft_layout' which focuses on validation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, contexts, or cases where another tool would be more appropriate. The single sentence only describes the action.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. 'Read and validate' implies safe read but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or return behavior. Minimal behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise but at the expense of completeness. A single phrase is insufficient for a tool with 7 parameters. The structure is not front-loaded with key details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 undocumented parameters, no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (not described), the description is severely incomplete. It does not help an agent invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation for any of the 7 parameters. Users cannot interpret parameter meaning or defaults (e.g., expected_completed, expected_error_absent).
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 has a specific verb ('Read and validate') and resource ('process completion/error state'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like alterios_start_process (mutation) and other validation tools (e.g., alterios_validate_form_contract).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for validation and process management, the absence of usage context makes selection difficult.
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 bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions validation and optional reading but does not explain side effects, idempotency, or whether the tool modifies state.
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 that efficiently communicates the core action. However, it could be expanded slightly to improve clarity without losing brevity.
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 7 parameters and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the validation outcome, how the optional read works, or how parameters affect behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters beyond implying a report_id. Terms like profile, project_id, view_limit, and expected_* are left entirely undefined.
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 validates a report template and optionally reads the source view, but it does not distinguish this from sibling validation tools like alterios_validate_form_contract or alterios_validate_stimulsoft_layout.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other validation tools or direct read operations. The description does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'read and validate' but does not explain if validation is read-only, what errors occur, or required permissions. The validation process is opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise and jargon-free, but for a tool with 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, it is too terse. It fails to include necessary details.
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 high number of parameters (7) and no schema descriptions, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain most parameters, nor the output format despite an existing output schema. The tool is underspecified.
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 implies script_id or name identifies the script, but other parameters (profile, project_id, expected_*) are not explained. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds minimal value beyond parameter names.
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 (read and validate), resource (Alterios script), and identification method (by ID or name). It distinguishes from sibling validation tools that target forms, modules, or processes. However, it could be more specific about the validation scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like alterios_validate_form_contract or alterios_validate_module_contract. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, permissions, error behavior) beyond the vague verb 'verify'. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two clauses) but too brief given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, output schema). It would be a 5 if it were equally clear and complete, but here 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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what verification criteria are used, how parameters influence behavior, or what the output contains. The tool's role among many siblings is unclear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds almost no meaning to the input schema parameters. While 'work_item_ref' and 'agent_handoff_refs' are implied, the purpose of 'dotenv_path', 'allow_closed', and 'required_roles' is not explained. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('verify') and the specific resources ('private Gitea work item' and 'structured agent handoff comments'). This distinguishes it from list/create tools, but could be more precise about what verification entails.
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 gitea_list_work_items or alterios_add_comment. No mention of context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states 'Read', implying a safe, non-mutating operation, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects. More disclosure is needed.
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 conveys the core action. However, it is overly brief and could include more detail without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of three parameters (one required) and an output schema, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns and how parameters relate. The current description leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not explain any parameters. The three parameters (profile, view_id, project_id) are left undefined, so the agent has no additional meaning beyond the schema's names.
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 purpose with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('configured entities/joins for an Alterios view'). It differentiates from sibling tools like alterios_get_view (which likely returns view metadata) and alterios_view_data (which returns data). However, the term 'entities/joins' could be more explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention whether the tool modifies issues, if it is destructive, or any side effects. The presence of a dry_run parameter is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no schema descriptions), more information is needed without being overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and 7 undocumented parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not enable an agent to use the tool correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the 7 parameters (limit, state, dry_run, apply_mode, project_id, dotenv_path, stage_column_map). The agent has no clue how to use them.
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 'Move' and the resource 'Gitea project-board cards into columns based on issue stage:* labels', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle AlteRios configurations, work items, etc.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description labels the tool as 'security/destructive write', which hints at potential irreversible actions, but it does not disclose key behaviors such as what happens on actual deletion, the role of dry_run, or whether the operation can be undone. No annotations are provided to supplement this.
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 very concise at two sentences, presenting the core information without waste. However, it could be slightly expanded to cover important details without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive write tool with 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain the planning versus deletion workflow, parameter roles, or return values, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning to any of the 6 parameters. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to explain parameters like dry_run, expected_name, or allow_destructive, which are critical for correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Plan or delete') and resource ('Alterios role'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like alterios_list_roles (listing) and alterios_upsert_group (update/create).
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, when not to, or what alternatives exist. For example, it does not explain when to plan versus delete, nor does it mention prerequisites like required permissions.
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 explicitly labels the tool as 'read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other aspects like idempotency, rate limits, or potential side effects. With no annotations, the description could provide more detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff. It is efficiently front-loaded with the essential action. However, it sacrifices parameter clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with five parameters and no parameter documentation. It fails to provide enough context for correct invocation, especially given the complexity of a smoke testing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters (profile, project_limit, include_project_ids, etc.). The agent has no semantic understanding of what each parameter does, requiring additional knowledge.
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 'run', the resource 'project-list and default-project route smoke', and scope 'across configured profiles'. It is specific enough to convey the main action, but does not distinguish from sibling like 'alterios_replay_smoke' which may have a similar 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?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without context on prerequisites, exclusions, or preference over sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It vaguely mentions three resolution methods but does not disclose order of operations, state changes (e.g., upload may be destructive), or conditions for each path. Key behavioral traits like whether dry_run prevents upload are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It front-loads the core action but lacks structure; no parameter explanations, no usage context. Every sentence should earn its place; here it's too sparse for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 11 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the three resolution methods, how parameters control behavior, or what the output contains. Sibling tools further demand more context to avoid confusion.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet description adds no parameter details beyond mentioning 'semantic icon'. With 11 parameters including dry_run, allow_upload, and recurse, the description fails to explain any of them, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'one semantic icon' to a specific output 'project-local iconId'. It mentions three methods (registry, file-manager scan, guarded upload), distinguishing it from siblings like alterios_list_project_icons which list icons, and alterios_ensure_project_icons which ensures existence.
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. With many sibling tools for icons (list, export, ensure), explicit when/when-not advice is missing. The description neither suggests preferred use cases nor mentions exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it's a read operation, but does not mention safety, side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, lacking explanations that would earn its place. It is appropriately short but incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the output contains or how to interpret 'populated field metadata'. The tool has 3 parameters (one required) and no schema descriptions, yet the description offers no structure or examples. It is insufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameter's meaning or format. It only repeats the name 'populated field metadata'. The agent receives no additional semantic help beyond the schema's type and required fields.
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 'Read' and the resource 'populated field metadata for an Alterios view'. It distinguishes from siblings like alterios_list_fields (which lists fields generally) and alterios_get_view (which gets view metadata) by specifying 'populated' field metadata, making its purpose specific and distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., alterios_list_fields, alterios_get_view). The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that would help an agent decide to invoke this tool over others.
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 provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states 'List... work items', implying read-only, but lacks details on permissions, pagination, rate limits, or side effects. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain how to use parameters for filtering (state, labels, milestones) or what the output contains. The tool is a listing operation with rich filtering capabilities, but the description leaves the agent guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. With 6 parameters including filtering options like query, state, labels, milestones, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List), the resource (private Gitea issue work items), and the source (configured workboard repository). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gitea_create_work_item and gitea_list_sprint_tasks, but could be more specific about what 'work items' entail.
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 such as gitea_list_sprint_tasks or other listing tools. No exclusions or prerequisites 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?
Description mentions 'Execution advances workflow state', but lacks details on side effects, irreversibility, or error conditions. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is concise, though it could be slightly more structured if it listed key points.
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 10 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal, omitting important context like return format, required identifiers, and workflow integration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation for any of the 10 parameters, leaving their purpose and usage entirely unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Plan or complete a BPMN task' with a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from sibling tools like alterios_start_process and alterios_list_process_tasks.
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, no prerequisites or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It ambiguously says 'Plan or upload' without explaining that dry_run controls whether actual upload occurs, or any side effects like project modification.
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, but it combines two different actions (plan vs upload) which could be split for clarity. Still, it is efficient.
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 complex tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not cover parameter usage, behavior variation with dry_run, or what the output schema contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with 7 parameters, yet the description only mentions 'Google Fonts Icons' and 'project'. It fails to explain key parameters like dry_run, icon_specs, project_id, etc.
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 'Plan or upload Google Fonts Icons into one Alterios project and return UUID iconId values,' providing a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_project_icons or resolve_project_icon.
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 (e.g., list_project_icons, resolve_project_icon). No prerequisites or conditions 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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions exporting to local artifacts but lacks details on side effects (e.g., file creation), required permissions, error conditions, or whether the operation is destructive. The description is too brief to be transparent.
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 that is easy to parse. However, it could be restructured to add more value without increasing length significantly. It is appropriately front-loaded but lacks depth.
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 7 parameters, no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'local artifacts' means, how the usage guide is generated, or how to specify the source folder. The tool requires more context to be usable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 7 parameters (profile, recurse, max_files, project_id, folder_hash, download_files, icons_folder_name). The tool name and one-line description leave the purpose of each parameter completely ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (export), resource (icons from an Alterios elFinder folder), and outcome (to local artifacts with a generated usage guide). It distinguishes from sibling tools like alterios_list_project_icons and alterios_resolve_project_icon.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as alterios_list_project_icons or alterios_resolve_project_icon. No context about prerequisites or use cases is given.
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 is the sole source of behavioral info. It indicates a read operation via typed security route but omits details like permissions required, performance, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. No return value description despite an output schema existing.
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 short sentence, front-loading the core purpose. It wastes no words but may be too brief. However, it earns a 4 for being succinct and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description lacks completeness: no explanation of what a user group is, how to obtain an ID, or any context about the typed security route. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly without additional knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The tool description does not explain any of the three parameters (profile, project_id, user_group_id), leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct arguments.
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 'Read' and the resource 'Alterios user group by ID', distinguishing it from sibling 'alterios_list_user_groups' which lists groups. The addition of 'through the typed security route' provides a specific context, though slightly jargon-ish, the core action is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., alterios_list_user_groups). No mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios. The description does not help an agent decide to use this over other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It hints at planning/dry run but does not explain destructive potential, authorization needs, idempotency, or side effects. The term 'replace' suggests mutation, but no details are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it is too brief, sacrificing clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not provide enough context to understand the tool's behavior for a 7-parameter tool. It lacks explanation of key parameters like 'dry_run' and 'allow_unmanaged_update', and does not clarify how 'plan' differs from 'replace'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 7 parameters. It fails to explain the purpose of 'tabs', 'dry_run', 'expected_name', 'allow_unmanaged_update', etc., which are critical for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the verb 'Plan or replace' and the resource 'tabs on an Alterios form', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like alterios_patch_form_cell_listeners or alterios_upsert_form.
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 prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what it does without contextualizing its appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the scope (template only, preserve metadata) but does not explain if the operation is destructive, requires authentication, side effects (e.g., validation of template), or the role of dry_run. Incomplete transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single sentence, front-loaded with key action and scope, no redundant text. Efficient and easily parsed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema being present, the description does not reference it or explain return values. With 8 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is far too sparse to cover the tool's complexity. The agent lacks context to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and description adds no explanation for any of the 8 parameters (e.g., dry_run, expected_name, expected_marker). Agent must infer meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool 'plan or replace only a report template while preserving report metadata.' It uses specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'alterios_upsert_report' which likely handles full reports.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies template-only operations but does not mention scenarios where other tools (e.g., alterios_upsert_report) would be more appropriate. Lacks 'when not to use' or conditional context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states read-only nature but omits crucial details like authentication requirements, error handling, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words. However, it could be slightly expanded with key details without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and an output schema that is not described, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain the return format or any constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must add meaning. It only mentions 'path' indirectly but does not describe the purpose or defaults of 'params', 'profile', 'project_id', or 'requires_project'. The description adds no value to the parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it performs a read-only GET request against an Alterios REST API path, specifying the verb (GET) and the resource (REST API path), distinguishing it from write siblings like alterios_rest_write.
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?
Description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g., alterios_list_objects, alterios_view_data). It only implies reading via REST, but no exclusions or alternatives 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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions planning vs execution and write gates, but lacks details on what gets modified, whether changes are reversible, or what happens when dry_run is false. The tool's mutation effects are not adequately described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two succinct sentences that front-load the purpose and add a critical usage note. 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.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is severely incomplete for a complex mutation tool with 17 parameters and no annotations. It fails to explain the planning vs execution semantics, the role of dry_run, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
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 coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to any of the 17 parameters. It does not explain key parameters like field_type, content_type_id, dry_run, or how field_id relates to update vs create.
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 'plan or create/update' and the resource 'Alterios content type field', distinguishing it from sibling tools like alterios_upsert_view_field. 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. The mention of 'write gates' hints at authorization but does not help an agent choose among similar upsert tools for different resource types.
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 description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions write gates, but ignores other key aspects: dry_run default behavior, idempotency, side effects, or that planning mode exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences) and front-loaded, but at the expense of necessary detail. It does not provide enough information to be truly useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Considering the tool's complexity (11 parameters, upsert semantics, dry run mode, output schema exists but not mentioned), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to cover parameter usage, return value, or typical scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain any parameters beyond the tool's general function. For 11 parameters including dry_run, tabs, etc., this is a critical 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 specific verb 'upsert' and resource 'Alterios form', making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like alterios_patch_form_tabs by covering full form creation/update.
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?
Mentions 'Execution requires explicit write gates' as a prerequisite, but lacks guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., patch tools) or context like expected workflow.
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?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies read-only but does not confirm immutability, rate limits, or side effects. The verb 'Read' is helpful but insufficient for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. However, it sacrifices informative detail for brevity, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity but leaves room for improvement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (not shown) and only three parameters, the description fails to explain parameter roles or contrast with sibling tools like alterios_list_write_plans. The tool likely requires more context to select correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the three parameters (limit, profile, project_id). The agent receives no context on what each parameter controls, which is critical for correct invocation.
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 'Read' and the resource 'recent write-plan and write-execution journal entries'. It distinguishes from siblings like alterios_list_write_plans (which likely lists plans) and alterios_fast_live_write (which writes), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving agents to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations; description only says 'create' with no details on side effects, permissions, or what folders are created.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words, but sacrifice completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks parameter details and behavioral context, making it incomplete for effective use.
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?
Input schema has 2 optional parameters (base_dir, dotenv_path) but no description or hint about their meaning or usage. 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('local private workboard folder structure'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like local_workboard_config or local_workboard_add_agent_report.
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, no prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the write gate requirement but does not explain other behaviors such as idempotency, side effects of dry_run, or implications of allow_destructive.
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 very concise at two sentences, but could add more value without significant bloat. It is appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, 0% schema descriptions, and no parameter explanations, the description is inadequate. It does not prepare the agent to use the tool correctly despite having an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It fails to do so, providing no information about function, args, dry_run, or other critical 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 states it is for planning or calling a mutating Alterios script service, which distinguishes it from the readonly sibling tool. However, it does not specify what kind of mutation or what the service does beyond being mutating.
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 mentions 'execution requires explicit write gates,' implying when to use it (when write gates are enabled). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like the readonly sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It labels the tool as 'security/destructive write,' hinting at its nature, but omits details about consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion, cascading effects, permission requirements). The dry_run and allow_destructive parameters are not explained, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant information. It immediately states the primary action and classification, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks completeness for a destructive tool with 6 undocumented parameters. It fails to clarify the 'plan' vs 'delete' distinction, what triggers actual deletion, or any safety mechanisms beyond the schema defaults. Essential context for safe usage is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The tool description does not mention any parameters (e.g., user_id, dry_run), failing to add meaning beyond the schema. This is a critical gap for a tool with 6 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Plan or delete an Alterios user.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from sibling tools like alterios_list_users or alterios_upsert_user_group, as no other sibling directly handles user deletion.
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 prerequisites, when a dry run is appropriate, or situations to avoid. With many sibling tools, explicit usage context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates read-only behavior but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or other behavioral traits beyond what is stated.
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?
Single sentence, 13 words, front-loads the primary action. Efficient but could benefit from additional structure, such as listing parameters or usage context.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values explanation is not required. However, the tool has 5 optional parameters with no description of how they interact (e.g., mutually exclusive, combined). The description is overly brief for a tool with multiple filtering options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for three parameters (process_id, diagram_id, content_id) by mentioning 'by process, diagram, or content context', but does not explain profile or project_id. Baseline for missing coverage is 2, but partial explanation raises to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read process instances and active tasks' which specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like alterios_start_process (write) by indicating read-only nature. However, it does not differentiate from other list tools like alterios_list_profiles.
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 vs alternatives. Does not mention when not to use or provide context for filtering choices.
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 exist. Description does not disclose behavioral traits: is it read-only or destructive? What happens on conflict? 'Plan or patch' is ambiguous. Lacks safety or side-effect details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, 14 words, no fluff. However, given the tool's complexity and 10 parameters, more structure (e.g., bullet points) would improve readability while maintaining conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing return value description despite having an output schema. No error scenarios, no explanation of dry_run vs actual patch, no info on concurrency or idempotency. Incomplete for a tool with this many parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. With 10 parameters (5 required), this is a significant gap. The description does not clarify what 'listeners' format is expected or how dry_run works.
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?
Clear verb 'Plan or patch' and specific resource 'one form cell's emitting.listeners'. The phrase 'without replacing the whole form manually' differentiates from broader form-update tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when or when-not to use. Does not mention alternatives like alterios_upsert_form or other patch tools. No prerequisites or context 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?
Without annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: it plans and reviews evidence before execution. However, it does not clarify side effects (e.g., state changes), required permissions, or error conditions.
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 that avoids unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action, though it could benefit from a slight structural improvement (e.g., splitting steps).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters (2 required), no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameters, expected outputs (despite an output schema existing), or provide enough context for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. It only vaguely references 'content-type' and 'route evidence', leaving the meaning of fields like 'ui_har_evidence' and 'target_project_ids' unclear.
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 the tool plans publish/transfer of native content-types and reviews route evidence. It specifies a verb (plan) and resource (content-type publish/transfer), but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like alterios_upsert_field or alterios_start_process.
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 vs. alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or suggest alternative tools for similar tasks.
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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the purpose. It doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or output details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, clear and direct. However, it could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not mentioned, the description is incomplete for an AI agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Validate' and the resource 'Stimulsoft template geometry', with specific aspects (overlaps, page overflow, dynamic-height risks). It distinguishes from sibling validation tools like alterios_validate_form_contract.
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, no context or exclusions. It only states the purpose.
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, and the description only states the purpose without disclosing side effects, permissions, or any behavioral traits. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden, which it fails to meet beyond the basic read-only implication.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, return values are covered. But the description lacks usage guidelines, parameter clarifications, and behavioral details, making it minimally adequate for a simple list tool but incomplete in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions 'profile/project target', which aligns with the required parameters, but does not explain the 'limit' parameter or its default behavior. No additional semantics are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'stored dry-run write plans', and the scope 'for a profile/project target'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform writes or other operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like alterios_fast_live_write or alterios_write_safety_preflight. The description does not include usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates the tool is read-only and local, but lacks details on what 'replay smoke checks' entail, expected duration, permissions required, or output format. The term 'replay' hints at deterministic tests, but more transparency is needed.
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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, omitting parameter details and behavioral specifics that could be added without significant bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain return values or how the smoke check results are presented. With 4 configurable parameters and no documentation, the description is far from complete for a testing tool with multiple options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the four parameters (profile, project_id, include_live, expected_tool_count_min). The agent is left to infer parameter meanings from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
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 specifies a clear verb ('Run') and resource ('local/read-only MCP replay smoke checks') with context ('after an update'). It differentiates from siblings like alterios_profile_smoke_matrix by emphasizing read-only local smoke checks, though the exact meaning of 'MCP replay' could be clearer.
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 explicitly states the usage trigger ('after an update'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools for other scenarios, such as alterios_profile_smoke_matrix for different smoke check configurations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states what is returned, without mentioning side effects, permissions, or safety profile. The tool appears to be a read operation, but this is not explicitly confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of one sentence that directly states the purpose. No unnecessary words or information, achieving high efficiency.
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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. However, the description lacks context about when or why to use this tool among many siblings, and could mention that it is a safe read-only operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so no additional description of parameters is needed. The input schema already covers everything. Baseline score for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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 returns the active MCP tool profile and a filtered registry summary, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like alterios_list_profiles, which may list all profiles.
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 instead of alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites, limitations, or when to prefer it over other 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?
The description indicates a read operation ('Read'), which is appropriate for a read-only tool. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or permissions. The existence of an output schema covers return format, but behavioral context is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at one sentence. However, for a tool with six parameters and no schema descriptions, it is too brief and sacrifices completeness. It could be longer to cover essential details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of six parameters with no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how filters interact, pagination behavior, or what constitutes 'fields'. The output schema may help with return structure, but usage context is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only mentions two parameters (content type and field ID) but does not explain the other four (limit, offset, profile, project_id). The description adds little meaning beyond the schema for the majority of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Read) and the resource (Alterios content type fields). It mentions optional filtering by content type or field ID. Among siblings, this tool is uniquely for listing fields, distinguishing it from other list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for reading fields with optional filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It states 'read-only', indicating no side effects, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or performance characteristics. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could be structured to include more detail without becoming verbose.
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 8 parameters with no descriptions, the tool is not fully usable without external knowledge. The output schema exists but the description fails to explain how to use parameters correctly, making it incomplete for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no information about the 8 parameters (e.g., profile, refresh, use_cache). It provides zero additional meaning beyond the schema, which is a significant 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?
Description clearly states 'Return a read-only health summary for forms/views/scripts/BPMN/reports' with a specific verb and resources. The phrase 'before writes' distinguishes it from sibling read tools and emphasizes its role as a pre-write health check.
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 explicitly says 'before writes', indicating this tool should be used prior to performing write operations. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide explicit alternatives, so guidance is clear but limited.
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, and the description only states the verb 'List', which implies a read operation. It lacks details on behavioral traits such as pagination, defaults, authentication requirements, or what happens when the milestone parameter is omitted.
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 no unnecessary words; it is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 listing tool with five optional parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of parameter documentation and behavioral details leaves gaps that could hinder correct invocation, especially given the limited context from annotations.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only mentions the milestone parameter. The other four parameters (limit, state, labels, dotenv_path) are left unexplained, providing minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the verb 'List', the resource 'Gitea issue work items', and the scope 'for one sprint/milestone', distinguishing it from similar sibling tools like gitea_list_work_items.
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 a specific sprint/milestone but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitea_list_work_items or gitea_create_work_item.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions SVG download restrictions (disabled by default, capped when enabled) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like necessary permissions, side effects, or error handling. Adequate but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and provide key usage details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema existing, the tool has 13 parameters with no descriptions and the description fails to explain their roles. The validation process, expected outcomes, and error conditions are not covered, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It only mentions 'module' and 'exact object IDs' in passing, leaving the other 11 parameters (including profile, view_id, project_id, etc.) unexplained. This is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool validates one complete module without a project-wide scan, distinguishing it from similar tools. The verb 'validate' and resource 'module' are specific, and the contrast with 'project-wide scan' differentiates from siblings like alterios_validate_form_contract.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives two usage modes (offline check with module, live read with object IDs) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling validation tools. It lacks comparative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the return value and usage condition, with no mention of side effects, error behavior, permissions, or whether the call is read-only. This is insufficient for a tool with no other behavioral indicators.
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 extraneous information. It is efficient for conveying the core purpose, but could be slightly improved by including a brief note on the optional parameters without adding verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere) and the tool has only two optional parameters, the description covers the basic purpose. However, the complete lack of parameter documentation leaves a significant gap, making the description merely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation for the two optional parameters ('base_dir' and 'dotenv_path'). While both are optional with defaults null, the lack of any guidance means an agent cannot decide whether or how to set them. The description fails to add semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource 'local private workboard target' with a condition 'when Gitea is unavailable.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'gitea_workboard_config' and 'local_workboard_init.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states the condition for use (when Gitea is unavailable) implying that under normal circumstances one should use 'gitea_workboard_config.' It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context from sibling names provides clear 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 must carry the full burden. It states the tool 'classifies' and 'returns gates', implying it is a safe, non-destructive operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Classify a proposed mutating REST call') and the outcome ('return the gates'). Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, an output schema, and a specialized preflight role), the description is minimal. While the output schema likely documents return values, the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter guidance or provide context on how 'gates' are defined or used.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters. While the purpose suggests 'method' and 'path' are key, parameters like 'allow_destructive', 'body', and 'profile' remain unexplained, placing a high burden on the agent to infer semantics from names alone.
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 'Classify' and resource 'mutating REST call', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that actually execute write operations. The outcome 'return the gates required before execution' further clarifies its role as a preflight gate analysis, not a write operation itself.
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 before executing a mutating call, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., alterios_discover_readonly or other write tools). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving room for confusion about when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/SayAMSTASI/alterios-mcp'

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