slimdex-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.1
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, but the large number of search/navigation tools (search_code, search_symbols, search_intent, find_definition, find_references, find_tests) could still cause misselection. The detailed descriptions mitigate ambiguity, though some overlap remains among context retrieval tools (get_context, get_symbol_context, context_pack).
Naming Consistency4/5The majority of tools follow a predictable verb_noun pattern (search_code, find_definition, memory_save, digest_get), but several deviate with noun-only or short names (snapshot, stats, recap, brief, batch, repo_map, dep_graph). This minor inconsistency is not chaotic but prevents a perfect score.
Tool Count2/5With 30 tools, the server is over-scoped for a single MCP server, exceeding the 'too many' threshold. Many tools serve overlapping purposes (e.g., six search tools, six context retrieval tools), and the feature set could be consolidated or split into focused sub-servers.
Completeness4/5The tool surface covers indexing, searching, symbol lookup, context retrieval, symbol editing, memory, session recap, and repository overview. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct file create/delete or git history tools), but the core workflows are well-covered with no dead ends.
Average 4.3/5 across 30 of 30 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 82 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
Tools from this server were used 2 times in the last 30 days.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
This server has been verified by its author.
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
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the specific file path and examples of what to save, but it does not disclose behaviors such as whether duplicate notes overwrite or append, or whether any permission is required. Given annotations cover the basic safety profile, the description provides some added context but not deep behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and target. It includes useful examples (decision, gotcha, TODO, location) and exact file path without any fluff. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and file location, but it omits the 'tags' parameter semantics. It also does not clarify behavior on duplicates or whether it appends to the JSON file. While low complexity, the missing tag explanation and minor behavioral gaps prevent a higher score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly implies the 'text' parameter via 'Save a durable note', but it completely omits any explanation of the 'tags' parameter, which is an array. Without description coverage, the agent cannot infer that tags are for categorizing notes. The description only partially clarifies parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Save') and specific resource ('a durable note' to '.slimdex/memory.json'), with concrete examples of content (decision, gotcha, TODO, location). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_search or memory_delete, which handle retrieval or removal. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool by listing example content types (decision, gotcha, TODO, location), suggesting it is intended for storing durable personal or project notes. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like memory_get or memory_search, nor does it state when not to use it. The guidance is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral detail: lines are 1-indexed, inclusive, and reading is cheaper than the whole file. However, with no annotations, it doesn't disclose error behavior (e.g., invalid ranges, missing files) or the return format, leaving some ambiguity for a simple 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences convey the essential information without redundancy. The description is efficiently written and every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-range tool with low complexity, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the operation, range semantics, and cost advantage. The main gap is that no output schema exists, so the return format is not disclosed, which is a minor omission for such a basic tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description clarifies start and end as an inclusive 1-indexed range, which is beyond the schema's minimum=1 constraint. It does not explain the path parameter or explicitly state that end must be >= start, so the description only partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: reading a specific line range of a file, with the scope (start..end) and indexing semantics (1-indexed, inclusive). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_context or snapshot, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for partial file reads by noting it is 'cheaper than the whole file,' but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No alternative tools are named, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the nesting prohibition and the efficiency motivation, but it does not explain failure semantics, ordering of results, or error handling. This leaves significant ambiguity for a tool that executes multiple calls.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a practical example and a critical constraint. Every word earns its place; no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple parameter structure and lack of output schema, the description is not severely incomplete, but it lacks important context such as response ordering, partial failure behavior, and whether results are returned per call. These omissions could mislead an agent into assuming atomicity or a specific response format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no description coverage (0%), but the description provides a concrete example ('calls: [{ "tool": "find_definition", "args": { "name": "login" } }, ...]') that clarifies the expected structure beyond the raw schema. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Execute multiple slimdex calls in one request to avoid per-call protocol overhead.' The verb 'Execute' is specific, the resource is 'multiple slimdex calls', and it distinguishes itself from other tools by focusing on batching to reduce overhead.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on why to use this tool (to avoid per-call protocol overhead) and explicitly states a constraint: 'Cannot nest batch inside itself.' It could be improved by mentioning when NOT to use it (e.g., for dependent calls) but the current guidance is adequate.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It honestly discloses detection mechanisms (path conventions like *.test.* and indexed describe/it titles) and a limitation ('Textual, so same caveat as find_references'). It also reveals that only test references are surfaced, not other risk before editing. It does not mention side effects or return format, but for a search-like tool this is a reasonable level of transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses the example to clarify intent. It contains four sentences, each adding value: purpose, actionable guidance, detection mechanism, and a caveat. It is slightly dense but not wasteful; the only minor issue is the reference to 'find_references' caveat without elaboration, which may be unclear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the core use case well but lacks details on limit and pathPrefix, and does not describe the expected output shape. For a focused search tool, it is adequate but not fully complete, especially for a newer agent trying to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It implicitly covers the sole required 'name' parameter as 'symbol', but makes no mention of the optional 'limit' or 'pathPrefix' parameters. These parameters are entirely undocumented, leaving the agent without meaning for how to use them. This is a clear gap given the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it finds references to a symbol that live in test files, with the example 'if I change calculateTax, which tests catch a break'. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_references and search_symbols by focusing specifically on test files, using a clear verb ('which references ... live in TEST files') and a concrete resource (test files). The example usage makes the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides practical context on when to use it: 'run exactly those, not the whole suite' suggests using it to target relevant tests. It also references a sibling tool ('same caveat as find_references') implicitly acknowledging an alternative. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool beyond the textual caveat. This is clear but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the search is heuristic, that the total count is always exact, and that limit/offset control printed results. This goes beyond a simple 'find definition' and gives useful expectations about accuracy and pagination.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds heuristic and pagination details. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the return format (path:line:col + kind) and key behaviors (heuristic, paging). Missing details like the 'kind' parameter and usage alternatives prevent a perfect score, but overall it's well-rounded for a lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 40%, with name, kind, and offset lacking descriptions. The description compensates for name (symbol lookup), limit/offset (paging semantics), and pathPrefix (scoping), but leaves 'kind' unexplained. It adds meaningful context but doesn't fully cover all parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Look up a symbol name in the index; return definition site(s) as path:line:col + kind.' This specifies the verb (look up), resource (symbol index), and output format, distinguishing it from siblings like find_references or search_code.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides operational context (heuristic, paged, pathPrefix scope) but never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_symbols or find_references. No exclusions or trade-offs are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that counters are cumulative, explains the character-not-token choice, and clarifies the server-lifetime implication of session:true. It also reveals the file location. The main gap is that it doesn't state what happens with no flags, but overall transparency is high.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a bit longer than average but every sentence adds value: core purpose, unit rationale, usage scenario, lifetime semantics, and a concrete recipe. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main idea, earning a 4 rather than a 3, though not as tight as a two-sentence description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three boolean flags and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the data source, units, persistence, and a specific workflow. The only notable omission is the default behavior when no flags are passed (whether it just reports current totals), but this is a minor gap given the schema implies optional flags.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between checkpoint and session and how reset interacts with cumulative counters. This goes beyond simply restating schema fields, so a 4 is warranted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool provides per-tool call counts and response sizes, and its purpose is to see which tool is producing context. The verb 'use it to see' gives a functional role, but it doesn't explicitly state 'reports' or 'retrieves', and the resource is a stats file. It does distinguish from siblings by its accounting focus, but the lack of a direct command verb holds it back from a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit when-to-use ('use it to see which tool is actually producing your context, and to tune limits') and provides a precise recipe for a one-task measurement (checkpoint:true then session:true). It doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the guidance covers the key scenarios. This is strong but not exhaustive enough for a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds key behavioral detail by stating 'Overwrites the previous one,' which is important for user expectations. It also explains the mechanism of 'covers' for future change notification. There is no contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each clause earns its place. It avoids fluff and includes a clear directive ('Save the why and the shape').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple save tool with no output schema and only two well-documented parameters. The description, combined with annotations and schema, fully conveys the tool's behavior, including overwrite semantics and the role of covers. It does not discuss error handling or return values, but that is not critical for this straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already describes 'text' and 'covers' well, and the tool description reinforces this with guidance like 'the why and the shape, not a symbol list' and 'omit = whole repo' for covers, but it does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Store') and the specific resource ('a compact 'how this repo works' cheat-sheet'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like digest_get (retrieval) and memory_save (general memory). It also clarifies what the digest should contain ('modules, flows, entry points, conventions'), avoiding ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the practical benefit ('future sessions read a page instead of re-exploring') and the role of 'covers' for tracking changed files. It implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to persist architecture knowledge) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like memory_save or index_repo, so it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds meaningful behavioral details: incremental re-parsing based on mtime changes, honoring a config file (.slimdex.json), and reporting config problems instead of silently ignoring them. This provides valuable context for the agent about side effects and error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage guidance and config behavior. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, re-run guidance, and config handling. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema) and the description covers its purpose, usage timing, incremental behavior, and config handling. It does not explicitly describe return values, but the lack of an output schema and the emphasis on side effects make the description sufficiently complete 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.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description covers the only parameter (force) 100%, so the schema fully explains the parameter. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but the behavior it describes (mtime-based caching) indirectly relates to force. With full schema coverage, no extra info in the description is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Build or refresh the persistent code index (symbols + imports)'. This uses a specific verb ('build'/'refresh') with a specific resource ('persistent code index') and differentiates it from sibling search tools like search_code and find_definition by focusing on index maintenance rather than querying.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: 're-run it liberally, like git fetch, before trusting a search'. This implies it is a prerequisite for reliable search results. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that previews are returned by default and that memory_get is the path to expand a single result. This goes beyond the schema's 'full' parameter description by adding the pointer to memory_get, which clarifies the intended interaction flow. It lacks explicit side-effect notes, but the read-only nature is implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, first front-loads the core purpose and method, second adds a crucial behavioral note about previews and the alternative. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: how to search, what to expect (previews), and how to get full results (memory_get). It doesn't detail the return structure, but the mention of 'id' implies results include identifiers, which is sufficient for usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% (only 'full' is described). The description partially compensates by indicating that 'query' performs substring matching and 'tag' filters by tag, which adds meaning beyond the parameter names. However, it doesn't clarify formats, case sensitivity, or how parameters combine, leaving room for ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb ('Find') and clearly identifies the resource ('saved memory facts') and the search method ('by substring and/or tag'). It also differentiates from siblings by noting that previews are returned by default and that memory_get expands one by id, which distinguishes it from memory_list and memory_get.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states the tool's role (searching memory facts) and provides a clear usage boundary: previews by default, and for full expansion use memory_get. This gives context on when to use this tool versus memory_get, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like memory_list or search_code.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behavioral traits: it returns only declarations with line numbers, not the body, and is compact. Since no annotations are provided, this transparency is valuable. It implies a read-only operation and sets expectations for output specificity, though it doesn't discuss edge cases or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the key information (what the tool does) and adds a clear secondary usage hint, making it exemplary in brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers the tool's simple purpose: output format (declarations with line numbers) and intended use (orientation before reading). It doesn't elaborate on return formatting, but given the output schema absence and the straightforward nature of the tool, this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has low coverage (0%) for the single 'path' parameter, and the description offers only the phrase 'one file' to clarify that path should point to a file rather than a directory. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, lacking details about path format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: it creates a compact outline of a single file showing declarations with line numbers, explicitly excluding the body. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like read_lines or get_file_skeleton, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Orient before reading' provides clear context for when to use this tool—as a preparatory step to get an overview before reading the full file. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 transparently describes the overview output and the drill-down behavior, including how `top` caps the list. It omits details about the `depth` parameter and does not explicitly state read-only nature, but the overview framing implies non-destructive use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no wasted words. Every clause adds value: the overview scope, the drill-down usage, the `top` cap, and the session-start guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only overview tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the primary outputs and the drill-down mode. It mentions the link to skeleton tools, which helps agent planning. However, it leaves the `depth` parameter unexplained and does not detail the exact return format for the drill-down view, which is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67% (top and path described). The description reinforces `path` and `top` by explaining their role in drill-down, which adds contextual meaning. However, `depth` is completely undocumented in both the schema and description, and the description does not significantly extend beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a 'Birds-eye overview' with specific outputs: 'top directories with file counts, total lines, and symbol counts.' It also distinctly frames itself as 'the bridge between orienting at the directory level and picking a file to skeleton,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_file_skeleton and outline_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly says 'Start every session here,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains the conditional behavior of passing `path` to drill into a directory. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the 'bridge... to picking a file to skeleton' implies the next step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses a prerequisite ('Requires a git checkout'), a cost/behavior trait ('without pulling the patch into context' indicating it is cheap and does not load the full patch), and the output structure. It does not explicitly state it's read-only but 'Summarize' implies no side effects; it lacks details on 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exactly two sentences: the first packs the core purpose and output, the second gives the use case and prerequisite. It is front-loaded, specific, and contains no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two optional params, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what it returns (counts and symbol locations), when to use it (start of session on dirty repo), and a prerequisite ('Requires a git checkout'). There are no critical gaps for agent selection or invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents both parameters fully (100% coverage), so the description need not compensate. It adds only a redundant clarification of `base` ('or a diff against base') but offers no new meaning for `limit` or parameter syntax, thus meeting the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Summarize' and clearly identifies the resource as the 'working-tree diff' with two explicit output components: '+added/-deleted counts' and 'enclosing functions/classes each hunk lands in.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'snapshot' or 'outline_file' that focus on structure rather than diffs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context: 'The cheap way to start a session on a dirty repo,' and contrasts with 'without pulling the patch into context,' implying a lightweight alternative to reading the full diff. However, it does not name specific sibling alternatives or explicit exclusions, so it falls short of the highest bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses that the tool runs exploration autonomously, ranks symbols, and operates under a char budget. However, it does not mention potential costs or failure modes (e.g., ambiguous queries), and stops short of stating whether it is read-only, though that is implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core value proposition and each sentence serves a purpose, but it is slightly verbose (e.g., the round-trip savings sentence partially repeats the opening). It remains informative without being overly padded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description must explain return content, and it does describe the included elements (ranked symbols, import graph, bodies). However, it omits the exact response structure or formats, and does not address error cases, leaving some gaps for a tool with 4 parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a bit of context by linking 'char budget' to budget and 'top few bodies' to bodies, but it does not provide new parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond the schema's own descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Understand a whole topic in ONE call' and explains what it does (BM25-ranks symbols, shows import graph, includes bodies). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming get_symbol_context and read_lines as alternatives for exact source.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Orient with this; drop to get_symbol_context / read_lines for exact source.' It clearly positions the tool for high-level orientation and round-trip savings, and contrasts with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as the mode-dependent output (imports vs. dependents vs. a mermaid diagram), the default whole-graph dump, and the ability to scope to a path prefix. This is significant behavioral context, though it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe performance implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is about 70 words, front-loads the purpose, uses a colon-separated mode breakdown, and ends with a practical usage tip. Every sentence adds value with no filler, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has moderate complexity (three modes, five parameters, no output schema). The description covers the modes, root/depth/scope, and a use case, but it omits the meaning of 'target' and does not describe the return shape for imports/dependents (only mermaid is said to produce a diagram). This leaves the agent with uncertainty about what the other modes return.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 40% (root and depth have descriptions). The description compensates by explaining the meaning of each mode, the behavior of root/depth (including default depth 2), and the scope parameter. However, the 'target' parameter is entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving a notable gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Query the internal import graph.' It then enumerates the three modes (imports, dependents, mermaid) and clarifies mermaid's behavior, which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_code or find_references. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous 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 Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly gives a concrete scenario: 'Run before refactoring a shared module.' It also explains when to use mermaid with root/depth versus dumping the whole graph. However, it does not mention alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it lacks exclusions but offers clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses whole-word matching, output format, handling of repeated occurrences, scope limitations, and pagination support. This gives the agent a clear picture of expected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, output format, limitations, and parameters. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the symbol being searched and lists pathPrefix, limit, and offset, but does not elaborate on their exact semantics. Limit/offset are standard, but pathPrefix is named without detail, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action: 'Whole-word textual search for a symbol' with a specific output format (path:line:col with enclosing function/class). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the textual, not scope-aware nature, which sets it apart from find_definition or search_symbols.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an implied usage context: it highlights that the search is not scope-aware and may include unrelated identifiers, suggesting it is not for precise reference resolution. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use 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.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool builds the index itself if the repo is unseen, automatically consults the journal, and checks each saved conclusion against the current index, flagging stale ones with ✓/⚠. It does not detail side effects or persistence, but the core behavioral traits are clearly communicated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two dense sentences, front-loaded with the critical 'CALL THIS FIRST' directive. Every clause adds functional value: when to use it, the unseen-repo exception, the alternative approach, and the output's components with staleness markers. No filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage timing, and output content. It does not explain internal journal mechanics or return format, but those are not essential for correct invocation given the schema's complete parameter coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter `limit` is fully described in the input schema with a default value, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with the imperative 'CALL THIS FIRST in a fresh chat' and defines the tool as 'One synthesized opener' that covers repo identity, recent session focus, and stale-checked conclusions. It explicitly distinguishes itself from `memory_list` + `recap` and from `index_repo`, making its unique purpose clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'CALL THIS FIRST in a fresh chat'. It also covers the special case of an unseen repo where the tool builds the index itself rather than redirecting to `index_repo`, and positions itself as an alternative to manually stitching `memory_list` + `recap`.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output includes a freshness verdict and a reason (changed files), and implies a read-only operation via 'Return'. It doesn't mention edge cases like a missing digest, but the core behavior is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and key output detail; the second adds actionable guidance. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get tool, the description covers the return value and how to use it. It lacks a note about behavior when no digest exists, but this is a minor gap given the simplicity and the explicit staleness guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers them. The description correctly avoids adding unnecessary parameter details, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('stored architecture digest'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like digest_save. It also adds what makes this tool unique: the freshness verdict that flags changed files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly tells the agent to 'Read it early' and provides a conditional follow-up ('if flagged stale, re-read the changed areas and digest_save an update'). This gives clear usage context, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that caller attribution is a heuristic ('attributed to their enclosing symbol — heuristic'), that sections are opt-in via include, and that output is bounded by callerLimit and maxChars with explicit truncation. It does not detail not-found behavior or return format, but the disclosed traits are meaningful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and information-dense, using three sentences to cover purpose, configurable sections, and limits. Every sentence contributes value with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is moderately complex with no output schema or annotations, yet the description covers its core behavior, configurable sections, defaults, and bounding limits. It does not explain the output structure or error cases, but it provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly for most one-shot context requests.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 75% of parameters, and the description adds semantic meaning by explaining the default include set ('default definition,signature,callers,imports') and how to extend it ('add body for full source, dependents for reverse deps'). It also ties callerLimit and maxChars to truncation behavior, going beyond the schema's default-value descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states this is a one-call aggregation tool: 'ONE call for what would take several: definition, signature, callers/references..., imports, dependents.' It identifies a specific resource (context brief for a symbol) and distinguishes itself from single-purpose siblings by emphasizing the combined retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys strong usage context with 'ONE call for what would take several' and explains opt-in section control. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives like find_definition or get_symbol_context, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are previews (not full bodies), that full:true is costly, and that brief offers staleness-checking (implying memory_list does not). It doesn't state the response shape or pagination behavior explicitly, but enough context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the most critical info (what the tool returns and how to expand). Every phrase earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the preview fields, ordering, the full:true alternative, and points to brief for staleness-checked previews. Minor gap: no explicit mention of the response container (e.g., array), but this isn't critical given the preview description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (full and limit), including costs and defaults. The description only adds a brief mention of full:true behavior, not significantly beyond 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (list saved facts), the ordering (newest-first), and the format (previews with id, date, tags, opening clause). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_get and brief by specifying what it does NOT do (expand full bodies, staleness-checking).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: use memory_get to expand specific ids, use full:true to dump everything, and prefer brief as the opener because it gives same previews but with staleness-checking. This makes when-to-use vs alternatives very clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: ranking by BM25, matching on tokenized names/kinds/filenames, and that it 'Matches WORDING, not meaning.' This goes beyond simple purpose and helps set expectations. However, it does not mention output format, whether an index must be pre-built, or any side effects, so it is not a perfect 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, highly efficient, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every clause adds value: the scenario, the ranking mechanism, the example, and the sibling alternatives. No redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a search tool and absence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and alternatives, plus an illustrative example. It does not explicitly mention prerequisites (e.g., whether indexing must have occurred) or return value structure, but these are not critical for selecting/invoking the tool. Slightly more context on outputs/limits would round it out.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers both parameters with full descriptions (100% coverage). The description reinforces the query semantics with the phrase 'a words query' and an example, but does not add significantly more meaning beyond the schema. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: search for code by describing intent ('Know WHAT the code does but not its name'). It specifies the mechanism (BM25 over tokenized names, kinds, filenames) and provides a concrete example ('validate user email' surfaces validateEmail / emailValidator), which fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_symbols and search_code.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is explicitly contextualized: 'Know WHAT the code does but not its name' sets the trigger. It also gives direct alternatives: 'Exact/partial name → search_symbols; literal string → search_code.' This makes it easy for an agent to decide when to pick this tool over 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool 'reads only the index, never the files' and describes cost/noise characteristics. This is valuable safety/performance transparency, though it doesn't mention prerequisites like repo indexing state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence states the action and ranking; the second gives usage context and an alternative. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and cost characteristics. It lacks explicit return-format details, but the tool's function is simple enough that an agent can infer what matching symbols look like. The mention of ranking and index-only access adds necessary context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (kind and limit are described; query and pathPrefix are not). The description gives a usage example for query ('something like handleAuth') but doesn't expand on pathPrefix or limit behavior, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Find indexed symbols whose name matches a query' – a specific verb+resource – and adds ranking order (exact > prefix > substring > subsequence). This clearly distinguishes it from broader search tools and matches the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly says 'Use this when you half-remember a name' and contrasts with search_code: 'far cheaper and far less noisy than search_code for finding a declaration.' This gives both a clear use case and a named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states that bodies are replaced with ' … {line}' and that indentation is preserved, which are the key behavioral traits. It does not cover every edge case, but the core behavior is well disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: the first defines the output, the second gives the use case and rationale. Both are information-dense with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, what the output looks like, when to use it, and why (token savings). It is complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage for the path parameter, but the description's context makes it obvious that 'path' refers to the file to analyze. A single, self-explanatory parameter does not require extensive elaboration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly defines the tool as producing a structural skeleton of a file: every declaration's signature with indentation preserved and bodies replaced by a placeholder. This specific transformation distinguishes it from siblings like read_lines or outline_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives an explicit when-to-use guideline: 'Use this before any full read of a file over ~300 lines.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the threshold and context are clear.
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?
The description adds crucial details beyond the destructiveHint annotation: 'Permanent — no undo, and no snapshot is taken.' This informs the agent about irreversibility and lack of backup, which is important for decision-making.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, scope, and a critical warning. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, mechanism, and side effects, which is sufficient 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.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions 'by its id', which gives semantic meaning to the single parameter, but it doesn't specify what the id refers to beyond the context. It is adequate but could be more explicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Remove', the resource 'memory fact', and the mechanism 'by its id'. This distinguishes it from sibling memory tools like memory_save, memory_search, and memory_list, which perform different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is evident: to delete a saved memory fact when you have its id. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a simple delete operation the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (server's tool-call journal), independence from prior memory_save, and the raw vs. digested nature of the output. It does not spell out side effects or return shape, but the read-only character is clearly implied by 'prior activity' and 'raw journal'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and dense: four short sentences that cover purpose, data source, usage guidance, and sibling differentiation without any filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It conveys what the tool returns, when to use it, what it does not require, and how it relates to memory_save and brief, leaving no major contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, limit, is fully described in the schema with minimum, maximum, and a clear explanation. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool surfaces prior activity from the server's own tool-call journal, listing specific content types like most-examined files and recent searches. It immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting recap vs. memory and positioning brief as the combined alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit guidance is provided: the tool needs no prior memory_save, works even when the last session saved nothing, and should normally be bypassed in favor of brief. The instruction 'reach here for the raw journal' directly tells the agent when to choose this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining the tool's behavior. It discloses that it copies files, runs automatically at most hourly, keeps newest 10, and does not replace committing. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it does not mention details like permission requirements or exact cleanup behavior, preventing a perfect score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: three sentences, each adding essential information. The first sentence states the core action, the second covers automatic behavior and retention, and the third explains the tool's protection and limitations. No redundant or filler content exists.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema) and the completeness of the description, it covers all necessary aspects: what it copies, where it stores, when it runs automatically, retention policy, and what it does not do. This is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps. Per the baseline rule for 0 params, this is a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Copy every uncommitted file into .slimdex/snapshots/<timestamp>'. It distinguishes itself from committing by explicitly saying 'does NOT replace committing', and it provides a concrete use case (insurance against accidental resets). This makes it easy to differentiate from sibling tools like index_repo or changed_files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear when-to-use context: 'as insurance against accidental resets' and 'Defeats a stray git checkout .'. It also mentions an automatic trigger when index_repo sees a dirty tree, and explicitly states 'does NOT replace committing', which serves as a when-not-to-use. However, it does not name alternative tools explicitly, so it falls slightly short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries behavioral disclosure. It clearly states output scope (body + context lines, not whole file) and index-based name resolution. It omits edge-case behavior (e.g., not found, multiple matches beyond pathPrefix) but is notably transparent for a read-only tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately useful guidance. Every sentence earns its place, including the explicit 'do NOT fall back' instruction.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers main usage modes well. It explains how to request symbols and emphasizes token efficiency. It doesn't detail after/before defaults or maxLines cap, but schema provides those constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 75% of parameters, and description adds meaning beyond it: clarifies name is index-resolved, names allows multiple bounded bodies, path+line is an explicit alternative. It doesn't fully explain after/before semantics, but those are inferable from 'context lines' and schema bounds.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool returns the body of a symbol (function/class/method) plus a few context lines, explicitly excluding whole-file content. It clearly distinguishes this from broader file-reading tools and provides concrete usage patterns (name, names, path+line).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: after a skeleton reveals function locations, pull bodies with names; advises against falling back to whole-file reads. It also mentions it's the biggest per-lookup token saver, helping the agent choose it over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the return content (full text + provenance) and implies a read-only operation via 'Read' in the title. While it doesn't explicitly state side effects or permissions, the read nature and return format are well communicated, adding useful context beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and includes usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (full text + provenance), how to obtain ids (from memory_list/brief/memory_search), and when to use it (expand after triage). It is complete for the tool's simplicity, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to misinvoke.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the 'ids' parameter as fact ids from memory_list/brief/memory_search, giving 100% coverage. The description reinforces this by stating 'specific facts by id' and explains the triage/expand relationship, adding contextual meaning beyond the raw schema definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving full text of specific facts by id, including provenance notes. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as 'the expansion half' versus brief/memory_list for triage, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides usage guidance: 'triage cheaply with brief/memory_list, expand only what you need.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus alternatives and implies ids come from the triage tools, as confirmed in the schema description.
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 and discloses important behaviors: every occurrence on a line counts, totals are exact unless the scan cap trips, and pagination uses either offset or an opaque cursor. It also explains the optional caret highlight and pre-excluded directories.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and result format. Every additional sentence adds useful detail about pagination, exclusions, and alternatives, with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema or annotations, the description explains the return format, pagination behavior, edge cases, and exclusions, making it largely sufficient. The only minor gaps are the undocumented 'regex' and 'ignoreCase' flags, which keep it from being fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (38%), so the description compensates by explaining pattern, pathPrefix, limit/offset/cursor, and highlight. However, it does not clarify the 'regex' and 'ignoreCase' boolean parameters, which remain inferable but under-documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('indexed files'), and immediately specifies the output format ('path:line:col + the matching line'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly pointing to find_definition/find_references for symbol searches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear when-to-use guidance: use pathPrefix to scope, and prefer find_definition/find_references for symbols. It also notes that vendor/build dirs are already excluded, which informs expectations and prevents redundant filtering.
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?
Despite annotations already indicating destructive behavior (destructiveHint:true), the description adds rich context: it writes a PreToolUse hook, merges rather than clobbers, is idempotent, prints exactly what changed, and specifies the exact conditions under which the hook speaks up. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: it covers purpose, why it's needed, behavior, scope options, and uninstall. It is front-loaded with the main action and flows logically without any fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only two parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does, why it's the only way, how it behaves, what it outputs, and all configuration choices. There are no gaps for the agent to guess.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already covers both parameters fully (100% coverage), but the description adds value by clarifying the default scope and when to use copilot-global vs other scopes. It also reinforces the uninstall parameter's purpose. This goes beyond simple schema repetition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool installs a PreToolUse hook and explains the specific niche (closing the protocol gap where MCP servers cannot add hooks). It distinguishes this from all sibling tools, which are read/search/save tools, by being the only installation mechanism.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly explains why this tool is needed (the protocol limitation), when to use it (to enforce write discipline), and provides scope choices with defaults and an uninstall option. It gives clear context for selecting copilot-global for VS Code, making the usage guidance strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent, the description adds substantial context: it snapshots the file first, re-indexes after, derives anchor spans from the index, inserts body verbatim, and guarantees atomic batch application with rollback on partial failure. It also explains that ambiguous names are refused and never guessed, offering safety details far beyond the annotation hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is long, but every sentence earns its place by conveying operational details essential for correct use. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ("Write a symbol by NAME") and then progressively adds mode distinctions, safety behavior, and batch semantics. Given the tool's complexity, the length is appropriate and not wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a destructive hint and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers both modes, failure and refusal scenarios, interaction with the index, snapshotting and re-indexing, batch atomicity with rollback, and even reports the new line span so the agent knows the return value. No critical aspect of usage is left unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema already describes all parameters at 100% coverage, the description significantly enriches meaning: it explains the semantic difference between REPLACE and INSERT modes, clarifies that `after`/`before` refer to the anchor's closing brace, warns about indentation and newlines, and describes how `edits` provides atomic multi-symbol replacement. This goes well beyond the schema's literal field descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource: "Write a symbol by NAME" and immediately clarifies that you never need to re-send the old body. It further differentiates from sibling tools by detailing two modes (REPLACE and INSERT), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from the search/read-oriented siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it explains that INSERT mode is "what you want for 'add a method beside the related ones'", and contrasts with ordinary edit tools by explaining name-based resolution and automatic re-resolution when files move. It also states refusals for ambiguous/unknown names and batch failure handling, effectively telling the agent 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.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Siddhukaushik/slimdex-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server