all the tools

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tool set includes three distinct servers (Task Manager, Playwright, YouTube Music) with clear internal separation, but there is one ambiguous tool ('Git Spice Help MCP Server_get-world-weather') that doesn't fit any domain and lacks a description, causing confusion. Within each server, tools are generally distinct, but the overall set has this outlier.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is highly inconsistent across servers: Task Manager uses verb_noun (e.g., 'addTask'), Playwright mixes verb_noun with descriptive phrases (e.g., 'playwright_get_visible_html'), and YouTube Music uses verb_noun (e.g., 'playTrack'). There's also a chaotic outlier ('Git Spice Help MCP Server_get-world-weather') with a different prefix style. This mix of conventions and prefixes reduces predictability.
Tool Count3/5
With 24 tools total, the count is borderline high but reasonable given the multi-server nature. However, the distribution is uneven: Task Manager has 13 tools (well-scoped), Playwright has 8 (reasonable), YouTube Music has 2 (thin), and one outlier tool. This imbalance suggests some servers may be over or under-equipped for their domains.
Completeness4/5
For the Task Manager server, coverage is nearly complete with CRUD operations for projects and tasks, plus workflow tools like 'getNextTask' and 'exportProject'. Playwright covers core browser and codegen actions. YouTube Music is minimal but functional. The main gap is the ambiguous 'get-world-weather' tool, which doesn't align with any server's purpose, but overall, each server's domain is adequately covered.
Average 3.5/5 across 24 of 24 tools scored. Lowest: 1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no 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?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions optional filtering and nested subtasks, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'retrieves' but not explicit), pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with four sentences that each add value: stating the core purpose, two optional features, and the return type. It's front-loaded with the main functionality. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for the optional features.
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 moderate complexity (filtering and nesting options), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic functionality and parameters but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and output format (beyond 'array of task objects'). For a tool with no structured safety or output information, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'optional filtering by task status' and 'option to include nested subtasks,' but these are already clear from the schema's enum values and parameter descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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: 'Retrieves a list of tasks for a specified project.' This is a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('tasks'), but it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'showTask' or 'getNextTask' which also retrieve task information. The description is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'showTask' (for single task details), 'getNextTask' (for prioritized retrieval), or 'expandTask' (which might handle subtasks differently). There's no context about prerequisites or when 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify what 'information' includes (e.g., session status, metadata, logs), whether it's safe or has side effects, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, potential errors, or behavioral nuances, which is inadequate for a tool that likely returns session details in a non-trivial format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'sessionId' documented as 'ID of the session to retrieve'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get information about a code generation session' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('code generation session'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'clear_codegen_session' or 'end_codegen_session' which also operate on code generation sessions, so it lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing session ID), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools like 'start_codegen_session' or 'clear_codegen_session', leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Set') but doesn't explain what this entails—whether it modifies an existing browser instance, requires specific permissions, affects subsequent requests, or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like how the User Agent is applied, what happens on failure, or what the response looks like, leaving critical gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'userAgent' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target ('custom User Agent for the browser'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'playwright_get_visible_html' or 'playwright_go_back', which are unrelated browser interaction tools, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself in 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or in what context it's appropriate. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active browser session) or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions searching by name but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like result format, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a search operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or any limitations, which is inadequate for a search tool that likely returns complex data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'trackName' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by implying the search is based on the track name, but it doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search for tracks') and resource ('on YouTube Music'), with the verb 'search' being specific. However, it doesn't differentiate from its only sibling tool 'playTrack', which is a different action, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives within the same server.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'playTrack' for playing tracks or other search tools. It lacks context about use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, offering only a basic statement of function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions clearing a session without generating a test, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is reversible, what happens to session data, permissions required, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and adds a clarifying constraint ('without generating a test'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, side effects, return values, and error handling, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly. The high schema coverage does not compensate for these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'sessionId' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter details beyond the schema, but with high coverage and only one parameter, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema sufficiently covers semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Clear a code generation session') and specifies what it does not do ('without generating a test'), which distinguishes it from potential alternatives. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'end_codegen_session', leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'end_codegen_session' or other session management tools. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., whether it waits for page load), performance considerations, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool that interacts with web pages.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that interacts with dynamic web content. It doesn't explain what 'visible text' entails (e.g., filtered vs. raw, handling of dynamic elements), return format, or error handling, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter details, earning a high baseline score for this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('visible text content of the current page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'playwright_get_visible_html', which likely retrieves HTML content rather than text, leaving room for potential confusion.
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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., requires an active page session), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'playwright_get_visible_html', leaving the agent to infer usage 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 provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what happens if no forward history exists (error? no-op?), whether it waits for page load, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a navigation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple navigation command and front-loads the essential information immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a browser navigation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (success indicator? new page state?), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The complexity of browser interaction warrants more complete disclosure.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the empty parameter set. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information beyond what's already covered, maintaining a baseline score for parameterless tools.
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 ('Navigate forward') and target ('in browser history'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'playwright_go_back' beyond the directional difference, which is implied but not stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires browser context, forward history availability) or contrast with sibling tools like 'playwright_go_back' or navigation 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions ending a session and generating a test file, but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits such as whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., does it delete the session?), what permissions are required, or how the test file is generated and stored. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('End a code generation session') and outcome ('generate the test file'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 (ending a session and generating a file), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on the generated test file's format, location, or any side effects. For a tool with these gaps, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'sessionId' clearly documented as 'ID of the session to end.' The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('End') and resource ('a code generation session'), and mentions the outcome ('generate the test file'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'clear_codegen_session' and 'get_codegen_session' by focusing on ending and generating. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by referencing 'a code generation session,' suggesting it should be used after starting one (with 'start_codegen_session'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'clear_codegen_session' or provide exclusions. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific page states, potential errors, or what 'visible' entails (e.g., viewport vs. rendered content). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core functionality without any wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose in a way that's easy for an agent to parse and understand immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate as a basic statement of purpose. However, it lacks context about when to use it, behavioral details, or output expectations, which could help an agent invoke it more effectively. It's minimally viable but leaves gaps in usage and behavior.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. This meets the baseline for tools with no 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 'Get' and the resource 'HTML content of the current page', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'playwright_get_visible_text' by specifying HTML rather than text. However, it doesn't explicitly mention it's for the 'visible' portion (implied by name but 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'playwright_get_visible_text' or other page interaction tools. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a page to be loaded) or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer context 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the action without detailing traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if sessions are persistent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. It mentions recording actions but doesn't explain how recording works (e.g., automatic capture of user interactions), leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse while conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (starting a session for code generation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like session lifecycle, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond its basic purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single 'options' parameter and its nested properties. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as default behaviors or examples, resulting in a baseline score of 3 where the schema handles the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Start a new code generation session') and the resource ('to record Playwright actions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'clear_codegen_session' and 'end_codegen_session' which manage existing sessions rather than initiating new ones. It precisely communicates the tool's function without redundancy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to start a session versus using 'get_codegen_session' to check an existing one, or prerequisites like needing an active Playwright context. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, offering only basic implied usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Returns the full details of the newly created task upon success,' which is useful output information. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., how dependencies affect task flow), error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured in four sentences: purpose statement, required parameters, optional parameters, and return value. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter overview but lacks critical context. It doesn't explain error handling, what 'full details' includes in the return, or how the tool interacts with sibling tools (e.g., dependencies referencing existing tasks). The description is minimally adequate but incomplete for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, constraints, and defaults. The description mentions the required parameters (project_id, description) and optional ones (dependencies, priority, status) but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Adds a new task'), target resource ('to a specified project within the Task Management Server'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'createProject' (which creates projects, not tasks) and 'updateTask' (which modifies existing tasks). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by stating 'Requires the project ID and a description for the task' and mentioning optional parameters, but it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'createProject' (for new projects) or 'updateTask' (for modifying existing tasks). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives are 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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Navigate back in browser history' clearly indicates a browser interaction, it doesn't specify what happens if there's no history to go back to, whether this requires an active browser session, or any error conditions. The description provides basic intent but lacks operational details.
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, perfectly focused sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for a simple navigation tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple navigation tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate basic functionality but lacks important contextual details. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, whether this affects browser state, or what the return value might be. The description is complete enough to understand the tool's purpose but not its full operational behavior.
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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist, and the schema already fully documents this. No additional parameter information is needed or 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 specific action ('Navigate back') and the target resource ('in browser history'), using precise verb+resource language. It effectively distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'playwright_go_forward' by specifying the opposite direction in browser navigation.
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 context (when browser history has a previous page to navigate to) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'playwright_go_forward' or other navigation methods. No explicit 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a creation operation (implying mutation), returns a UUID, and handles optional naming with defaults. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent, which are important 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?
The description is appropriately sized with four sentences that are front-loaded (purpose first, then usage, return value, and parameter detail). Each sentence adds value, though the second sentence could be more concise by integrating with the first.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, return value, and parameter behavior, but lacks details on error handling, side effects, or what the UUID can be used for, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'projectName' thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by restating that the name is optional and a default will be generated, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond the schema. With 0 required parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Creates a new, empty project entry'), the resource ('in the Task Management Server database'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'deleteProject' or 'importProject'. It specifies this creates an empty workspace for tasks, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('used by clients to initiate a new workspace for tasks') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'importProject' or when not to use it. It mentions it's for creating new projects but lacks clear guidance on prerequisites or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves details (read operation), specifies required IDs, and mentions what's included (dependencies, subtasks). However, it doesn't cover error behavior (e.g., what happens if IDs are invalid), performance characteristics, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a read tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second specifies requirements, third describes return. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct information. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers what the tool does, what it requires, and what it returns. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return structure or error handling, but it's adequate for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema (UUID format for project_id, minLength for task_id). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the parameters are required, but doesn't provide additional semantic context like examples or edge cases.
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 specific action ('Retrieves'), the resource ('full details of a single, specific task'), and scope ('including its dependencies and direct subtasks'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'listTasks' (which lists multiple tasks) and 'getNextTask' (which retrieves a different type of task).
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 context by stating 'Requires the project ID and the task ID' and specifying it retrieves 'a single, specific task,' but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'listTasks' for multiple tasks or 'expandTask' for deeper hierarchies. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds valuable behavioral context beyond the input schema. It discloses that deletion is destructive (implied by 'Deletes'), mentions cascade effects ('deletes its subtasks and dependency links'), and specifies the return value ('count of successfully deleted tasks'). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter requirements, important behavioral notes, and return information—all in four concise sentences with zero wasted words. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with cascade effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the action, parameters, cascade behavior, and return value. However, it could be more complete by addressing error scenarios or prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), which are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the parameters (project_id and task_ids). The description adds minimal semantic value by restating the need for 'project ID and an array of task IDs' but does not provide additional context like format examples or edge cases beyond what the schema describes.
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 specific action ('Deletes'), the resource ('one or more tasks within a specified project'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'deleteProject' (which deletes entire projects) and 'listTasks' (which only reads). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that differentiates its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'within a specified project' and listing required parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deleteProject' or 'setTaskStatus' (which might archive instead of delete). No explicit exclusions or comparison to siblings are provided, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool exports data (read-only operation), includes metadata/tasks/dependencies hierarchically, requires project ID, has fixed JSON format for V1, and returns a JSON string. However, it doesn't mention potential size limitations, error conditions, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with four focused sentences that each add value: first states the core purpose, second details what's included, third mentions the required parameter, fourth specifies the return format. No wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage: it explains what data is exported, the required parameter, format constraints, and return type. The main gap is lack of output schema, but the description compensates by specifying the return is a 'JSON string representing the project data.' Could be more complete with error handling or size considerations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the required project ID and that format is fixed to JSON, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage or constraints beyond what's in the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Exports'), resource ('complete data set for a specified project'), and output format ('as a JSON string'). It distinguishes from siblings like importProject (opposite direction) and listTasks/showTask (partial views) by emphasizing completeness and hierarchical structure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to export complete project data') and mentions the required project ID. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like listTasks for partial data, though the distinction is implied through the emphasis on completeness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: bulk update capability (1-100 tasks), verification of task existence before updating, and the return value (count of updated tasks). However, it doesn't mention error handling, permissions needed, or whether the operation is idempotent.
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?
Four sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second lists required inputs, third describes verification behavior, fourth specifies return value. Each sentence adds essential information, and the description is appropriately front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the update operation, verification step, and return value. However, it lacks details on error cases (e.g., what happens if some tasks don't exist) and doesn't mention side effects or permissions, leaving some gaps in behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reinforcing that project_id identifies the project and task_ids is an array of 1-100 IDs. No additional syntax or format details 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 action ('Updates the status'), specifies the resource ('one or more tasks within a specified project'), and lists the exact status values. It distinguishes from siblings like 'updateTask' (which likely updates other fields) and 'listTasks' (which only reads).
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 bulk status updates with verification, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'updateTask' (for single tasks or other fields) or 'deleteTask' (for removal). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required parameters are mentioned.
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 full burden. It discloses that it's a mutation operation ('Updates'), requires specific IDs, and returns full task details. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, error conditions, or whether updates are atomic/partial. The description adds value but lacks comprehensive behavioral context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second specifies requirements, third lists updatable fields with constraint, fourth describes return value. Every sentence earns its place and information is front-loaded appropriately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well: covers purpose, requirements, fields, constraint, and return value. However, it could better address sibling differentiation and provide more behavioral context (e.g., error cases, partial updates). Given the 100% schema coverage, it's mostly complete but has minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description mentions the three optional fields (description, priority, dependencies) and the requirement for at least one, but adds minimal semantic value beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Updates specific details'), resource ('existing task within a project'), and scope ('description, priority, and/or dependencies'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'addTask' (create new), 'deleteTask' (remove), and 'setTaskStatus' (only status changes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: requires project and task IDs, and at least one optional field must be provided. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'setTaskStatus' (for status-only updates) or 'expandTask' (for different operations).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it searches YouTube Music, selects the top result, and opens it in the default browser. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., browser pop-ups, audio playback), authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a tool that interacts with external services.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Search for a track on YouTube Music and open the top result in the default browser'). There is no wasted text, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.
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 moderate complexity (interacts with external service, opens browser) and no annotations or output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on error handling, what happens if no results are found, or the format of any potential return values. It covers the basic operation but leaves gaps for robust agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'trackName'. The description adds meaning by explaining that this parameter is used to 'search for a track' and 'play' it, providing context beyond the schema's basic description. Since there is only one parameter, the baseline is high.
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 specific action ('Search for a track on YouTube Music and open the top result in the default browser'), including the verb ('search' and 'open'), resource ('track'), and scope ('top result', 'default browser'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'YouTube Music MCP_searchTrack' by specifying the additional action of opening the result.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('search for a track') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling 'searchTrack' tool. It provides clear context for when to use it (to play a track), but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the mutation behavior ('breaks down', 'creates'), the conditional logic around existing subtasks (force flag behavior), and the return value ('Returns the updated parent task details'). It doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, or error handling specifics, but covers the core behavioral traits well for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly structured and front-loaded: first sentence states the core purpose, second lists required parameters, third explains the optional flag's behavior, fourth describes the return value. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it highly scannable and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well: it explains the operation's purpose, parameters, conditional behavior (force flag), and return value. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects beyond subtask creation/deletion, error conditions beyond the force flag scenario, or what specific details are included in 'updated parent task details.' Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, it's quite complete but has minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions the three required parameters and the optional force flag, but adds minimal semantic value beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It provides context about what the parameters represent ('project ID', 'parent task ID', 'descriptions for new subtasks') but doesn't explain relationships or usage patterns 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 states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('breaks down', 'based on provided descriptions') and resources ('parent task', 'subtasks'), and distinguishes it from siblings like addTask (which adds a single task) or updateTask (which modifies existing tasks). It explicitly mentions creating multiple subtasks from a parent task, which is unique among the task management tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('breaks down a specified parent task into multiple subtasks'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage for task decomposition scenarios but lacks explicit exclusions like 'use addTask for single tasks' or 'use updateTask for modifying existing subtasks'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so effectively by detailing behavioral traits: it explains the selection logic (status, dependencies, priority, creation time) and return behavior (full details or null). It does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but covers core operational behavior adequately for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by detailed criteria in a logical flow. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness by explaining the selection logic and return behavior. It could improve by specifying output format details or error handling, but it covers the essential operational context for a tool with one parameter and clear logic.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'project_id' clearly documented in the schema as a UUID. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying project context, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation sufficiently.
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 specific action ('Identifies and returns the next actionable task') and resource ('within a specified project'), distinguishing it from siblings like listTasks or showTask by focusing on task selection logic rather than listing or displaying tasks. It explicitly defines 'actionable' with criteria, making the purpose distinct and well-defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying criteria for task selection (status 'todo', dependencies 'done'), which helps determine when to use this tool for task prioritization. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like listTasks (for all tasks) or setTaskStatus (for updating tasks), missing explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it creates a new project (implying mutation), performs validation (parsing, structure, size limits), and returns the project_id upon success. It doesn't mention error handling or permissions, but covers essential operational traits.
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 efficiently structured in four sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, data requirements, validation details, and return value. It's front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the action, input requirements, validation, and return value. However, it lacks details on error cases, permissions, or side effects, which would be helpful given the complexity of project creation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying 'project_data' must match export structure, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Creates a new project by importing data from a JSON string'), identifies the resource ('project'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'createProject' by specifying the import mechanism and reference to 'exportProject'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('importing data from a JSON string' that 'must conform to the structure previously generated by the exportProject tool'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'createProject' for non-import scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates critical traits: the operation is 'highly destructive,' 'cannot be undone,' and has a specific outcome ('Returns a success confirmation upon completion'). This covers safety, irreversibility, and response expectations that annotations would normally provide.
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 appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and critical warnings. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action and scope, the second specifies the parameter and destructiveness, and the third clarifies the return value. There is zero waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's high complexity (destructive deletion with cascading effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, behavioral risks, parameter requirement, and return value, addressing all essential aspects for safe and correct usage without relying on structured fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter (project_id as a UUID that must exist). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'Requires the project ID' but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('permanently deletes'), the resource ('a project and ALL associated tasks and dependencies'), and distinguishes it from siblings like deleteTask (which only deletes a single task) and createProject/updateTask (which are opposite operations). It goes beyond just restating the name/title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Requires the project ID') and implicitly contrasts with siblings by specifying it deletes 'ALL associated tasks and dependencies' (unlike deleteTask). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like exportProject for backup before deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

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

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

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/SecretiveShell/MCP-allthetools'

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