@m6b9/mcp-mailchimp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools follow a distinct resource+action pattern, and descriptions clarify boundaries (e.g., archive_member vs delete_member). A few pairs like search_members vs list_members or list_reports vs get_campaign_report could cause minor confusion, but overall the purposes are clear.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use snake_case and predominantly follow verb_noun conventions (list_, get_, create_, update_, delete_). Exceptions like ping and search_members are still predictable and do not break the pattern.
Tool Count2/5
At 72 tools, the surface is very large. While it covers many Mailchimp resources, the sheer number makes it heavy and potentially overwhelming for an agent; some resources could have been consolidated or omitted.
Completeness4/5
Core CRUD/lifecycle coverage is strong for audiences, members, campaigns, templates, and files. Gaps exist for creating/updating automations and conversations (read-only), but the main email marketing workflows are well supported.
Average 3.3/5 across 72 of 72 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Update campaign settings' with no mention of side effects, idempotency, permissions, partial update semantics, or other important behaviors. For a mutation tool, this is a significant disclosure gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (3 words) with no fluff, but it is under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters. It lacks the detail needed to be genuinely useful, so while concise, it does not achieve an appropriate structure for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It provides only a basic purpose and does not explain return values, errors, or how this update fits into the broader campaign lifecycle. It is minimally adequate but leaves substantial gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (title, subject, reply_to, from_name, campaign_id) having a clear description. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update campaign settings' clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (campaign), and the focus on 'settings' distinguishes it from other update tools like update_audience or update_template. However, 'settings' is somewhat vague and doesn't differentiate from sibling campaign tools like set_campaign_content or schedule_campaign.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_campaign, set_campaign_content, or send_campaign. There are no prerequisites, context hints, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a segment' offers no information about irreversibility, required permissions, side effects, or error behavior. It merely restates the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, directly to the point, with zero wasted words. It is perfectly front-loaded and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context. It does not mention whether deletion is permanent, what happens to associated data, or any operational considerations. The tool is simple but the description is under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters (list_id and segment_id) clearly, with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'delete' and the resource 'segment', which unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_segment or list_segments by the verb, though it lacks additional scope details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as delete_audience or delete_member. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says 'Delete a template' without mentioning permanence, side effects on campaigns using the template, or required permissions. This is a critical gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no filler, efficiently stating the core action. It is concise, though its brevity borders on under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter delete tool, the description is technically functional, but it lacks behavioral context. Without annotations or an output schema, it should clarify the destructive nature and consequences; it fails to do so.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (template_id is described as 'The template ID to delete'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'template', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_template or list_templates. The action is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or what alternatives exist. The description simply states the action with no contextual information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update audience settings' — implying mutation but providing no details on idempotency, side effects, required permissions, or whether it's a partial or full update. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief ('Update audience settings'), which is too underspecified to be helpful. It lacks the structure or detail needed for an agent to use it effectively. This is under-specification rather than good conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a vague description, the context is very incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'settings' includes, what the response looks like, or what happens on success/failure. The schema covers parameters but not the broader context needed for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with all three parameters described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update) and the resource (audience), distinguishing it from related tools like create_audience or delete_audience. However, 'settings' is vague and doesn't specify which settings, so it's not as precise as it could be.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_audience or update_segment. The description simply states what it does without any context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects and behavior. It only states what the tool does, not how it behaves in edge cases (e.g., duplicate email, status semantics, whether an opt-in confirmation is sent for 'pending'). The description is too sparse to convey behavioral transparency for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clean sentence that immediately states the purpose. It wastes no words. However, given the tool's parameter complexity and lack of annotations, a second sentence on usage or behavior would make it more appropriately sized, so it is not a perfect 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters, an enum, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations. The description is minimal and does not explain expected returns, error scenarios, or behavior when a member already exists. It is not complete enough given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), including examples like merge_fields. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states. Per the rubric, this is a baseline 3 — the schema carries the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add a new subscriber to an audience' clearly identifies the action (add) and the resource (new subscriber to an audience). It distinguishes from update/archive/delete operations by using 'new', but does not explicitly mention alternatives like tag_member or update_member, so it slightly lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the audience must exist) or clarify that for existing members one should use update_member. The description offers no context for choosing add_member over tag_member or other available operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'create new email campaign' and does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it creates a draft), required permissions, or that content and scheduling are separate steps. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is well-structured and easy to parse. While it could be expanded with useful guidance, it is not verbose or redundant, meriting a score above average.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without annotations, output schema, or additional context, the description is minimal and incomplete. It does not mention that a newly created campaign typically requires content and scheduling via separate tools, nor does it explain return values. Given the 6 parameters and the existence of related campaign workflow tools, more context is needed for successful usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The schema already documents each parameter, including the type enum and field purposes. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new email campaign' clearly states the action (create) and resource (email campaign). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_campaign, send_campaign, and delete_campaign by its verb and resource. However, it lacks scope details (e.g., draft vs. sent) that would fully differentiate it from related creation actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or follow-up steps (e.g., setting content or sending). Sibling tools like set_campaign_content and send_campaign exist, but the description offers no context about creating a draft versus a ready-to-send campaign.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it merely restates the tool's name. It does not reveal whether duplicate names are allowed, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or what the response will contain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it sacrifices informational content for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is too minimal. It omits important context such as expected behavior on duplicates, error handling, and the response shape, leaving the agent without enough information to confidently invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the 'name' parameter as 'Folder name' (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'template folder' adds slight context but does not extend the parameter semantics meaningfully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('template folder'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_template and create_file_folder. It is unambiguous about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_template_folders or create_template. No prerequisites, intended context, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only 'Add a domain for verification' and gives no detail about side effects, whether verification is triggered automatically, prerequisites like DNS records, or idempotency. For a create operation, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, using six words to convey the core action and purpose. It does not waste words, and for such a simple tool, a longer description may not be necessary. It is slightly under-specified but still appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and a simple create operation, the description should clarify what happens after adding a domain. It does not specify whether the domain is immediately verified, if a verification email is sent separately, or what the response contains. The existence of sibling 'send_domain_verification_email' makes this ambiguity particularly problematic, so the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single 'domain' parameter with a description explaining that an email address can be supplied and the domain will be extracted. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Add' with resource 'domain' and states the purpose 'for verification'. This clearly indicates the action of adding a domain to be verified, distinguishing it from siblings like 'send_domain_verification_email' and 'delete_verified_domain'. However, it lacks the phrase 'verified domain' and could be misread as performing the verification itself, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention of using this before 'send_domain_verification_email' or that verification might occur automatically. The description provides no context for selecting this among the verified-domain sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a tag is deleted, but does not mention irreversibility, permission requirements, side effects on tagged members, or what happens if the tag does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and object. There is no unnecessary information or repetition of schema details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a destructive mutation with no annotations or output schema, so the description must provide more context. It fails to explain consequences, success/failure behavior, or what 'tag' means in this context (e.g., a tag object vs. a segment), leaving gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (tag_id and list_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, warranting the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action (delete), the resource (tag), and the context (from an audience), making it distinct from sibling tools like delete_audience or tag_member. However, it does not clarify the relationship between 'tag' and 'segment', which appear as separate resources in sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_segment or update_audience. The description simply states the function without any contextual cues or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies a destructive action, but it does not state whether the deletion is permanent, irreversible, subject to restrictions, or has side effects on associated campaigns or automations. It adds no context beyond what the tool name already implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (one sentence, five words), but it is under-specified. It offers no useful information beyond the tool name, making it a tautology rather than a concise, informative description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the consequences (permanence, prerequisites, or effects on related data) or the response behavior. Even with sibling context, it remains incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% — the only parameter 'domain' has a clear description ('The domain name to remove'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove a verified domain' clearly identifies the action (remove) and resource (verified domain). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_verified_domains, get_verified_domain, create_verified_domain, and send_domain_verification_email.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the domain must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot be removed if in use), or alternatives (e.g., send_domain_verification_email for resending verification). The description simply restates the function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' signals a read-only operation but does not describe the response format, error behavior, rate limits, or any other relevant context, adding little beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what 'details' includes, but it does not. An agent deciding whether this tool returns the needed fields would have to look elsewhere, creating a significant information gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents the single parameter 'list_id' with the description 'The audience/list ID'. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific Mailchimp audience'), clearly distinguishing this from list_audiences by emphasizing 'specific'. However, 'details' is vague and does not specify the exact fields or structure returned, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_audiences or get_segment. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the required 'list_id' parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Get details' without specifying what fields are returned, whether there are pagination limits, authentication requirements, or potential error cases. For a read operation, this is minimal context and adds little beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes to the core purpose. This is appropriate given the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what 'details' includes or how it differs from related tools like get_campaign_content and get_campaign_report. It does none of this, leaving the agent with ambiguity about the returned data structure and relationship to siblings. The description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness in the context of the extensive sibling list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides a description for the single parameter ('The campaign ID'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond implying that the campaign is identified by its ID, so the schema covers the semantics adequately. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get details of a specific campaign' clearly states the verb (Get), the resource (campaign), and the scope (specific, i.e., single entity). It distinguishes from list_campaigns (which lists multiple campaigns) but is less clear vs. get_campaign_content and get_campaign_report, since 'details' could be interpreted broadly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_campaign_content, get_campaign_report, or list_campaigns. The description gives no exclusions or context about the appropriate use case, leaving the agent to infer when a 'specific campaign' should be fetched versus other campaign-related data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get details' without stating return format, read-only nature, error behavior, or any side effects. For a simple getter this is minimal but still lacks substantive behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that states the core purpose without wordiness. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though it could arguably include a bit more useful detail without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention what 'details' includes or how the response is structured, and it lacks comparison to sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with conversation_id described as 'The conversation ID'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. No additional parameter context is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'details of a specific conversation', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_conversations. It is specific enough that an agent can infer this is a retrieval operation for a single conversation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_conversations or list_conversation_messages. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states a basic list operation. It does not mention return value format, pagination, required permissions, whether it returns all emails or just metadata, or any side effects. The description adds minimal value beyond what the name implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and object, and every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description is too thin to be complete. It does not clarify what 'emails' means in the response, whether it includes details like subject or status, or any filtering/ordering behavior. For a list operation, the agent would benefit from knowing the return shape or any limitations, but this is entirely absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents workflow_id with a clear description ('The automation workflow ID'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('emails') with a scope ('in an automation workflow'), which distinguishes it from 'get_automation_email' (singular) and 'list_automations' (workflows, not emails). However, it does not explicitly mention that it lists emails for the given workflow_id, nor does it contrast with sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_automation_email or list_automations. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'List conversations (inbox messages)' and does not disclose pagination behavior, sort order, default count, or the meaning of 'inbox messages' in relation to conversation threads. This is a minimal description that adds little beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations or output schema, and the description does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or typical use cases. While the schema documents parameters well, the description lacks the contextual depth needed for an agent to confidently invoke this tool among many similar list operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All five parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema handles parameter semantics. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists conversations and clarifies them as inbox messages. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_conversation' (single item vs. list) but does not explicitly differentiate from 'list_conversation_messages' (which lists messages within a conversation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_conversation_messages' or 'search_members'. The schema includes filter parameters like campaign_id and has_unread_messages, but the description does not explain when to apply them or what scenarios they address.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only gives a high-level operation. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or how pagination and type filters affect results. The schema includes count and offset, but the description does not explain their behavioral implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short and gives the core purpose immediately. It earns a top score for conciseness and front-loading.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fails to convey what a caller should expect from the response or how typical usage works. It does not explain the meaning of 'segment type' or pagination defaults, leaving significant gaps for a tool with this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides detailed descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional semantic value. The tool's one-sentence overview does not enrich parameter understanding beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (segments) scoped to an audience. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_segment (single segment) and list_segment_members (members of a segment), though it does not explicitly contrast them. The phrase 'for an audience' aligns with the required list_id parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_segment or list_segment_members. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when a different tool might be more appropriate. This is a clear gap in usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only restates the core function. It does not explain that the member must already exist, what happens if not found, whether email is used as an identifier, or if any status transitions are restricted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not address error cases, required permissions, or the fact that email identifies the member and cannot be changed. The schema covers parameter semantics, but the overall context is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter information, but the schema already explains each field adequately, 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an existing member in an audience, which distinguishes it from add_member, archive_member, and delete_member. However, it does not mention which fields can be updated, so it is less specific than ideal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_member or archive_member. The sibling tools are not referenced, and there is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing side effects and requirements, but it merely states the operation without addressing permissions, reversibility, or consequences of updating a merge field. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise but does not sacrifice clarity for the basic purpose, making it appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is inadequate for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema. It lacks usage context, behavioral details, and explicit parameter significance, leaving significant gaps despite the schema's high coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents all five parameters with descriptions, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description's mention of 'properties' adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, yielding the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (merge field's properties), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_merge_field or delete_merge_field. However, it uses the generic term 'properties' without specifying which aspects are mutable, so it is clear but not highly specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_merge_field or get_merge_field. The intent is only implied by the verb 'update', offering no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Delete a folder' without mentioning irreversibility, required permissions, impact on contained files, or any other consequences. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the simple schema, the description lacks essential context for a destructive tool: no mention of permanence, prerequisites, or side effects. The agent may not know whether deletion is reversible or what happens to the folder's contents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single parameter 'folder_id' with a clear description ('The folder ID to delete'), so description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (folder), and adds context ('from the file manager'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_file and delete_audience by specifying folder deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., folder must be empty), or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the name and simple description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether deletion is permanent, how it affects templates inside the folder, or any authorization requirements. The single sentence offers no behavioral insights beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wordiness. It efficiently states the purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple delete operation, but the description omits critical context such as whether deleting the folder cascades to contained templates, if the action is reversible, or what the outcome looks like. Given no annotations or output schema, this minimal description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the parameter 'folder_id' described as 'The folder ID to delete'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a template folder' uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (template folder), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_template and create_template_folder. It is unambiguous about the operation performed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states the action without context on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutating action ('Create') but does not mention required permissions, side effects, or response behavior. The distinction between static and saved/conditional is a slight behavioral hint, but it falls far short of what is needed for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without waste. It is appropriately concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the segment types differ in usage, or any behavioral details. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters into static vs saved/conditional segments, which helps infer which parameters are relevant together. This goes slightly beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Create a new segment' with a specific resource. The parenthetical '(static or saved/conditional)' adds useful distinction and differentiates it from sibling tools like list_segments or update_segment. However, it does not explicitly contrast with create_audience, though segment vs audience is reasonably clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any indication of prerequisites or how static vs saved segments are chosen. The description just states the action with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the purpose ('Get details'). It does not mention whether this returns metadata or content, auth requirements, error behavior, or any side effects, leaving the agent without important context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description is minimally adequate, but without an output schema, 'details' is vague and does not clarify the return payload or how this relates to sibling file tools. It is functional but leaves room for ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the only parameter, file_id, with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('details of a specific file'), and the word 'specific' signals a singular-file lookup versus list_files. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other get_* sibling tools beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool as opposed to list_files, upload_file, or delete_file. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions; usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and generic description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get details of a specific interest', which reveals the basic read behavior but does not disclose return format, error handling, required permissions, or any constraints. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and free of unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the core purpose without padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description plus the well-documented schema give the agent the essential purpose and required parameters. However, without an output schema or mention of what 'details' includes, the description is adequate but lacks depth for a complete understanding of the tool's response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (list_id, category_id, interest_id). The description itself adds no parameter details, so the baseline of 3 applies, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'details of a specific interest', indicating a read operation for a single interest. It distinguishes from list_interests by using 'specific', but does not explicitly name any sibling tool, so it stops short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_interests or get_interest_category. The description simply restates the operation without adding context such as prerequisites or intended use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get details' without elaborating on return structure, potential errors, or any side effects. For a read operation, the lack of details about what 'details' includes is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence that immediately conveys the action and resource. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get operation with two well-documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what 'details' are returned and does not clarify its position relative to sibling tools, which is a completeness gap given the presence of similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters list_id and category_id are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for schema-heavy documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get details') and the resource ('specific interest category'), making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_interest_categories or get_interest, which could lead to ambiguity about which tool to invoke for related tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_interest or list_interest_categories. The description simply states what it does without providing context for appropriate use cases or prerequisities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'List Mailchimp campaigns' without mentioning pagination, default count, return format, or any side effects. This lack of behavioral detail is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, earning every word it contains.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal but functional for a simple list operation. However, it omits any mention of supported filters or pagination, which are documented in the schema but not in the description, leaving the agent with incomplete contextual information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, including enums for type and status. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema already provides the necessary details, 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Mailchimp campaigns', making the operation explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_campaign by using the plural 'campaigns', but it does not elaborate on scope or filtering options.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_campaign or list_automations. No context is given about appropriate use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a simple action without revealing pagination behavior, response format, or any constraints such as membership details returned. The description adds no context beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple, and the schema covers parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not hint at the return structure or any edge cases. A slightly more descriptive sentence about what is returned would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters like count or offset, but the schema already explains them sufficiently.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List members in a segment' clearly states the action (list) and the specific resource (members in a segment), distinguishing it from the sibling list_members which likely lists all members in an audience. However, it does not explicitly frame it against other segment-focused tools like get_segment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_members or get_segment. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The term 'soft-delete' discloses that the member is not permanently removed, but it does not explain effects on the member record, whether the action is reversible, or if list membership counts are affected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the verb and includes the key clarification 'soft-delete' without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter mutation, the description covers the core action, but without annotations or usage guidelines, it omits important behavioral context (reversibility, side effects) and when to use it rather than delete_member.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes both parameters (email, list_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond 'a member' and 'an audience,' which map directly to the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Archive' with clarification 'soft-delete') and the resource ('a member from an audience'). This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_member, which likely performs a hard delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use archive_member versus alternatives like delete_member or update_member. The 'soft-delete' hint implies an alternative to permanent deletion, but no explicit when/when-not is stated.
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 implies a read-only operation via the word 'get', but without annotations, it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects or disclose any behavioral traits such as error conditions or required permissions. It adds minimal transparency beyond what the name/verb suggests.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that is easy to parse. It is appropriately concise for a simple retrieve operation, though it forgoes the opportunity to add useful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain what 'details' includes or any return value structure, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, so the completeness is moderate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('list_id' and 'merge_field_id'). The description adds no additional meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('a specific merge field'), making it distinct from the sibling 'list_merge_fields' by implying a single record. However, it does not explicitly mention the parameters or that it fetches by ID, which is partially covered by the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_merge_fields' or when it is appropriate to call. It does not specify any prerequisites or context where this tool is the preferred choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get recent activity feed', which implies a read operation but does not describe potential side effects, pagination behavior, data scope, or return format. For a list tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler words, directly leading with the verb and resource. It is optimally concise for the minimal information it conveys, though it may be under-specified, conciseness itself is perfect.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and only a bare description, the tool is under-documented. The description does not explain what the activity feed contains, how pagination works, or what the response looks like, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely names the operation and object, without elaborating on how parameters like 'count' or 'offset' affect the results. Thus, it does not need to compensate for missing schema info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recent activity feed') for an audience, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_audiences (listing audiences) or get_audience (getting an audience's details). It directly conveys what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the action without contextualizing its appropriate use relative to the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'List messages,' implying a read operation, but does not disclose behavior such as pagination, sorting, read status filtering, or response format. This is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with zero wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, conveying the core purpose immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite 4 parameters and no output schema, the description only says 'List messages.' It omits return format, pagination details, and any behavioral context. The schema covers parameters, but the description is too thin to be considered complete for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable but does not elevate the score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists messages in a conversation thread, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_conversations, but does not explicitly differentiate itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'in a conversation thread' implies when to use this tool, but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., needing a conversation_id) or when to choose it over alternatives like get_conversation or list_members.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not disclose pagination behavior, default count, read-only nature, or any other side effects or nuances.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no superfluous words, which is highly efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite being a simple list tool, the description omits important context: the need for list_id in addition to category_id, the pagination parameters, and what the response contains. The lack of an output schema and annotations leaves the agent with insufficient information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds only marginal reinforcement of the category_id concept but does not explain the role of list_id or the count/offset semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'interests', and the scope 'within a category', which distinguishes it from siblings like get_interest (single interest) and list_interest_categories (lists categories). No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also fails to mention that both list_id and category_id are required, which is essential context for using the tool correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it fails to mention pagination behavior despite count/offset parameters. The phrase 'all tags' is misleading given the default count of 10, and no information is provided about return format or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal and incomplete for a tool with no output schema. It does not explain what the response contains, and the term 'all tags' conflicts with the paginated behavior implied by count/offset. Missing context about tag usage or audience association makes it insufficient for full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond implicitly linking 'audience' to the list_id parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists tags for a specific audience, using a specific verb ('list') and resource ('tags'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_tag and delete_tag by indicating a read-only listing operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the appropriate tool for viewing existing tags before creating or deleting them, nor does it exclude any contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state side-effect-freeness, authentication needs, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema implies. It is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise to a fault, but for a simple list tool this is appropriate; a bit more context would improve it, but it does not waste words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, two optional pagination parameters, and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It fully states the action and resource, but lacks any context about typical use, relationship to template creation, or return format. It is complete only at a basic level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for count and offset in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully handles parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List template folders' uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's function immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_templates' and 'list_file_folders' by explicitly naming the resource type, though it does not elaborate on scope or filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer it over list_templates or list_file_folders, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the action. It doesn't mention whether the domain must exist, whether it resets verification state, rate limits, or what happens if already verified. This leaves the agent without critical context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of seven words with no redundant content. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool (1 param, no output schema), but with no annotations, the description doesn't disclose preconditions, side effects, or return value. The brief description leaves important operational details unsaid, especially given the surrounding domain verification workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage with a description for 'domain' ('The domain name'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description's 'for a domain' adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Resend') with a clear resource ('verification email') and target ('a domain'), distinguishing it from sibling domain tools like create_verified_domain or list_verified_domains. It is unambiguous and immediately conveys the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_verified_domain or list_verified_domains. The verb 'Resend' implies a prior verification email, but this is not stated as a precondition or compared to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the basic action but does not mention side effects, error conditions, permissions, or return values, leaving the agent without information about what to expect after creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately states the core function but leaves gaps about return value, duplicate names, and other behavioral context, earning a 3.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the only parameter ('name' with description 'Folder name'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so by the baseline rule a score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create'), the resource ('a new folder'), and the context ('in the file manager'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_template_folder. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_file_folders or create_template_folder, nor any conditions or prerequisites. Usage 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only states 'Create a new merge field' without mentioning side effects, permissions, uniqueness rules, or response format. This is a mutation tool with limited behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, minimal and to the point. No filler words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create operation with a well-specified schema, the description is adequate but lacks behavioral context (e.g., whether choices are required for certain types, what the response is). Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more detail would help, but the core is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, including enum for type. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource 'merge field' and target 'audience'. Clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list/get/update/delete_merge_field.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions. The description merely states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the create operation without addressing permissions, idempotency, duplicate handling, or the response/return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits useful context such as the requirement that the audience already exists or the expected success response, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, as both parameters (name and list_id) have descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'create' with resource 'tag' and scope 'for an audience', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tags and delete_tag. It unambiguously states what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as tag_member (which tags members) or create_audience. No prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates deletion but does not clarify whether the deletion is permanent, reversible, or what side effects may occur. This is a minimal disclosure for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, extremely concise, and front-loaded. Every word earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 1-parameter delete tool, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks explicit statements about permanence, error handling, or expected outcomes. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more contextual disclosure would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter, file_id, with a clear description ('The file ID to delete'). The tool description adds no additional parameter 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the specific resource ('a file from the file manager'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_file_folder or delete_campaign, which target different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool, any prerequisites, or alternative approaches (e.g., archiving instead of deleting). It simply states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of conveying behavior. It states the operation is a 'Get' (implying read-only) and the content type, but it does not disclose return structure, error handling, or any side effects. For a simple getter the ambiguity is moderate, but the lack of detail about how HTML/text content is returned is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the key information. Every word contributes to the purpose, with no redundant details or filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description states the basic purpose but lacks context about response format, when to choose this over similar tools, or any edge-case behavior. It is minimally sufficient but leaves important gaps for an agent that needs to invoke it correctly without additional documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers the single parameter campaign_id with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond reiterating 'a campaign', which is redundant. It does not clarify format, constraints, or relationship to other parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('HTML/text content of a campaign'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_campaign (which likely retrieves campaign details) and set_campaign_content (which writes content). The verb and object 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_campaign or list_campaigns. It does not mention any conditions for use, exclusions, or direct references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the intended context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List folders' and does not mention pagination, return format, ordering, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, earning its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks explicit mention of return values or pagination behavior that would make it fully complete. It is sufficient for basic understanding but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters (count and offset) have complete descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information, but the schema already provides adequate semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('folders in the file manager'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_file_folder, create_file_folder, and list_template_folders. It unambiguously states the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool relative to alternatives such as get_file_folder for retrieving a single folder or list_files for listing files. The description simply states the action without context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, and description provides no behavioral details; doesn't mention pagination, return format, or permissions. The input schema shows count/offset, but description does not explain behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded verb and resource, no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no mention of return structure; relies on tool name to imply a list. Adequate for a simple read operation but lacks detail on response contents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters are fully described in the schema (count, offset, list_id) with descriptions; description adds nothing beyond the schema mention of 'for an audience' which is already in list_id description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'interest categories (groups)' for an audience, clearly distinguishing from siblings like list_interests (individual interests) and get_interest_category (single category).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives; does not mention 'use this before get_interest_category or list_interests', nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention pagination, default count, filtering options, or that it is a read-only operation. The bare statement 'List members' lacks behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and immediately comprehensible.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return structure or pagination behavior, but the schema covers parameter semantics. Given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters with adequate meaning (e.g., 'Number of results (default 10)'). The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List members of a Mailchimp audience' clearly states the verb (list), the resource (members), and the container (audience). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_member (single member) and search_members (search operation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_members or get_member. The description only states what it does, not the intended context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation name, omitting details like pagination (count/offset), filtering by type, and the response format. For a read-only list operation, this minimal context may be insufficient for an agent to predict behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and to the point, which is ideal for a simple list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the schema is well-defined, but the description lacks important context. Without an output schema or annotations, it does not clearly convey pagination behavior or filter options. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps in what an agent can expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents all three parameters (type, count, offset) with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics beyond repeating the resource name, so it neither improves nor detracts from the schema's coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Mailchimp email templates' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (Mailchimp email templates). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_audiences, list_campaigns, and list_template_folders, which target different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_template should be used for retrieving a single template, or that list_template_folders is for folders. No exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining whether updates are partial or full replacements, how missing optional fields are handled, or potential side effects. For a mutation tool, this lack of detail is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is efficient but borderline under-specified, lacking context that could be added without excessive length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters, 2 required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully guide an agent. It omits return value expectations, update semantics (e.g., replacement vs merge), and any edge-case behavior. The tool would benefit from more explicit behavioral guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all six parameters with individual descriptions. The tool description adds no new syntactic or format detail beyond mentioning 'name or conditions'. Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'segment', making it unambiguous which operation it performs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_segment, delete_segment, and get_segment by focusing on the update action. The scope ('name or conditions') gives specific, actionable meaning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this when you need to update a segment's name or conditions. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites (e.g., list_id and segment_id are required), or exclusions versus other update tools. This is minimal but not entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the create action and mentions 'contact info and campaign defaults', but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error conditions, or return value. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Create a new audience/list') and contains no extraneous information. It is appropriately sized and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 12 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is not complete. It does not mention what the tool returns, any prerequisites, or potential failure states. The schema covers parameter definitions, but the description fails to provide broader operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 12 parameters have detailed descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. The phrase 'contact info and campaign defaults' groups some parameters but does not explain them beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a new audience/list with contact info and campaign defaults'. It uses the verb 'Create', identifies the resource as 'audience/list', and adds scope ('contact info and campaign defaults'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_audience and delete_audience.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating a new audience, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. No reference is made to sibling tools, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('create') without detailing side effects, permissions, name uniqueness, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no extra words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Perfectly sized for the simplicity of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite 100% schema coverage, the description lacks context about return values, required fields beyond what schema states, or the relationship to template folders. Without an output schema or annotations, the description should provide more operational context to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add any parameter info beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new email template' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (email template). The word 'new' distinguishes it from update_template and other template-related tools. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its usage through the verb 'create' – to be used when creating a new template rather than updating or listing. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like update_template, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. No alternative tools are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description simply restates the tool's function without disclosing return format, error behavior, or whether it is read-only. It adds no additional behavioral context beyond the name and schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the qualifier 'specific', which helps differentiate it from list operations. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete: it does not specify what 'details' include or describe any response structure. Still, it provides just enough context for a standard read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with workflow_id described as 'The automation workflow ID'. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'details of a specific automation workflow', distinguishing it from siblings like list_automations (list all) and get_automation_email (specific email within an automation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need details for one specific automation workflow, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the core behavior (scheduling for future time) but discloses no prerequisites, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing schedules), required campaign state, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a scheduling action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is appropriately concise. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and there is no redundant or extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and minimal description, the tool's behavior is under-specified. The description does not explain how scheduling interacts with the campaign lifecycle, whether it can modify an existing schedule, or any conditions for use. Given the context of many related sibling tools, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents parameters sufficiently; the description does not need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Schedule a campaign for a future date/time' clearly states the action (schedule) and resource (campaign), with the specific detail of future timing. It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like send_campaign (immediate send) and create_campaign (creation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (future scheduling) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like send_campaign or note when not to use. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses irreversibility, a key behavioral trait, and immediacy. However, it does not mention permission requirements, campaign state prerequisites (e.g., must have content), or what happens after sending.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, no redundancy, and the most important information (immediate, irreversible action) is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple action with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and irreversibility. It could add prerequisite context (e.g. campaign must be ready to send), but it is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single campaign_id parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Send a campaign immediately.' The word 'immediately' distinguishes it from scheduling tools like schedule_campaign, though it does not explicitly name that alternative. It is specific and uses a strong verb-resource pairing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as schedule_campaign. The description implies immediate sending, but it does not state that this should be chosen for immediate delivery, nor does it mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Set' without disclosing whether content is replaced or appended, whether the campaign must be in a certain state, any authorization requirements, or the return behavior. This is minimal for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence of eight words that states the core action. Every word earns its place and it is effectively front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain side effects or what the call returns. It simply says 'Set the HTML content of a campaign' with no elaboration on replacement semantics, validation, or any post-conditions, leaving gaps for a simple but nontrivial mutation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes both parameters (html, campaign_id) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'set' with a clear resource: 'HTML content of a campaign'. This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_campaign_content, and is not a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use (when you need to set HTML content) but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over update_campaign or other sibling tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The word 'permanently' explicitly communicates that the deletion is irreversible and destructive. However, it does not mention other potential effects, such as whether associated data (e.g., reports, content) is also deleted, or whether any special permissions are required. The disclosure is minimal but not absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is four words, with zero filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and the permanent nature, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential action, but it lacks context about side effects, error conditions, or prerequisites. It does not explain what happens to campaign content or history after deletion, which may be important for an agent. The completeness is low-to-moderate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema describes the single parameter 'campaign_id' with the description 'The campaign ID to delete,' giving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema already states. Per baseline, this is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Permanently delete a campaign.' The verb 'delete' is specific, and the resource 'campaign' is unambiguous. The adverb 'permanently' adds a key distinguishing nuance, implying irreversibility, which sets it apart from other campaign-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_campaign' or 'archive_member'. It does not state any preconditions (e.g., campaign must exist) or scenarios where deletion is appropriate. No usage context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning permanence, permission requirements, side effects, or error behavior, which is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no filler words, making it highly concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with a fully described schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits details about the return value, idempotency, or consequences of deletion, which would be important for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both list_id and merge_field_id, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('merge field from an audience'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_merge_field, update_merge_field, and create_merge_field.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the usage is only implied by the verb 'delete'. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation without side effects, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it adds no context about response format, error behavior, or access requirements, so it is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with two well-documented parameters, the description is functional but does not specify what 'details' includes or what the return structure looks like. Without an output schema or annotations, this vagueness leaves some gaps, though the tool is straightforward.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters described ('The automation email ID' and 'The automation workflow ID'). The description's phrase 'specific automation email' reinforces the need for both IDs but does not add new syntax or relational details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('automation email'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_automation_emails (listing) and get_automation (workflow-level). It precisely identifies the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for a specific email, but does not mention that list_automation_emails is for enumeration or that get_automation is for the workflow. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get details' without mentioning what details are returned, potential error states, authentication needs, or any side effects. The behavior remains largely opaque beyond the fact that it is a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence: 'Get details of a specific segment'. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no unnecessary words, making it appropriately concise for a simple getter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a straightforward single-resource getter with two fully described parameters, so the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what 'details' includes or the return format, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (list_id and segment_id), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'a specific segment', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like list_segments or list_segment_members. It unambiguously states the operation's scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'specific segment' implicitly suggests usage when a single segment is needed, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_segments or provide any exclusion criteria. Usage context is implied rather than clearly elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but fails to disclose error behavior, return format, or idempotency, offering minimal behavioral context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is perfectly concise for a simple read operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one well-described parameter, the description states the essential purpose. However, since there is no output schema, it would benefit from indicating what the verification status response contains or any edge cases, but completeness is adequate for basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with domain described as 'The domain name (e.g. example.com)'. The description adds only the word 'specific', which is redundant, so it provides no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'verification status of a specific domain', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_verified_domains or create_verified_domain. It is explicit and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking a single domain's status, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_verified_domains or mention any exclusions. The context is clear from the word 'specific' but lacks explicit alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full transparency burden. 'List' implicitly indicates a read-only operation with no destructive side effects, but the description does not disclose any additional behaviors such as pagination defaults or response format. This minimal disclosure is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves room for more detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and target. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple list operation with a well-documented schema and no output schema. The description states the core purpose but omits details about return values or pagination behavior. Given the low complexity and full parameter documentation, the description is minimally viable but not rich enough to fully inform callers about expected results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (count, offset, status), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, this is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'automation workflows', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_automation_emails. It does not explicitly exclude other operations, but the resource is specific enough to avoid ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_automation or list_automation_emails. However, the straightforward 'List automation workflows' implies it is the default choice for enumerating automations, making usage reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'List files' and does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether it requires permissions, how pagination works, or what the response structure is. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the bare action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states verb and resource with no extraneous words. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward listing tool, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is simple and the schema is rich, but for a tool with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks context about pagination behavior, usage guidance, and safety profile. It is minimally sufficient but leaves room for improvement in explaining when and how to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (type, count, offset, folder_id), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no further parameter context, resulting in the baseline score of 3 for well-covered schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List files in the Mailchimp file manager' uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('files in the Mailchimp file manager'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_file, upload_file, delete_file, and list_file_folders. It is unambiguous about the operation's scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for browsing files, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_file or list_file_folders, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough, but no direct comparison or alternative is mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' without stating that this is a read-only operation, that it is paginated (though count/offset parameters imply it), what the default page size is, or any return characteristics. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no fluff, repetition, or irrelevant details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the schema covers all parameters with clear descriptions, including default count and offset meaning. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain the response structure or any behavioral nuances. It is minimally complete but lacks the richness needed to fully prepare an agent for invocation without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for all four parameters, including the 'list_id' required audience ID, the 'type' filter, and 'count'/'offset' pagination controls. The description adds only the clarification that merge fields are 'custom fields', which is marginal. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'merge fields (custom fields)' and includes the scope 'for an audience'. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_merge_field (single field), create_merge_field, update_merge_field, and delete_merge_field.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (list all merge fields for a given audience) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. The usage context is inferable from the verb and sibling names, but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'with performance stats' hints at the return content, but it does not explain sorting, default ordering, or what specific stats are included. This is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of six words, with no filler. It front-loads the key information and every word contributes to the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with only two well-documented pagination parameters, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not specify the return structure (no output schema) or what 'performance stats' includes, which may be necessary for an agent to interpret the result. Without annotations, it does not fully disclose behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (count and offset), so the description adds little beyond them. The mention of 'performance stats' does not directly clarify the pagination parameters. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, score 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'campaign reports' and adds 'with performance stats' to clarify the content. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_campaigns (lists campaigns, not reports) and get_campaign_report (singular report).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over siblings. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_campaign_report for a single report. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the query parameter (email or name) and gives no details about search semantics (e.g., case sensitivity, partial matching), result format, pagination, rate limits, or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Search') and resource ('members'), with scope and criteria appended. Every word is meaningful, and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool without an output schema or annotations, the description conveys the core function but omits important contextual details such as how results are returned, whether there are pagination/limit constraints, and how it differs from listing all members. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps that an agent would need to discover at runtime.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the 'query' parameter with 'Search query (email or name)', and the description does not add any additional meaning beyond that. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies, but no extra value is contributed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('members'), and a scope ('across all audiences'), with search criteria ('by email or name'). This uniquely identifies the tool among siblings like list_members (list) and get_member (retrieve by ID), giving it a distinct purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'across all audiences' implies this tool is for global member search, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_members or get_member, nor does it state when to prefer this over alternatives. The usage context is clear but exclusions and alternative recommendations are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action 'add or remove' but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, whether it requires special permissions, whether it replaces all tags or only modifies the specified ones, or what happens if a tag doesn't exist. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. It is front-loaded and contains no filler words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how to obtain valid tag names (e.g., via list_tags). The schema covers parameter semantics, but broader usage context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter and the nested status field well-described in the schema (e.g., 'active = add, inactive = remove'). The description itself adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add or remove tags on a member' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like add_member (add a member) or create_tag (create a tag definition). It precisely states the scope: managing tag associations on an existing member.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating the action, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or preconditions. For example, it doesn't clarify that this tool is for applying existing tags to a member, as opposed to creating tags with create_tag.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of permanence ('permanently delete'), which is helpful. However, it does not mention other potential side effects, permissions, or what happens to associated data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The entire description is concise and directly to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter delete operation with full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It does not explain return values (since no output schema exists), but the tool's simplicity lowers the burden.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully describes list_id. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, hence baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('audience/list'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like update_audience and create_audience. The word 'permanently' adds important scope about irreversibility.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_audience or archive_member (for members). The description merely states the action without providing context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does mention the report contains opens, clicks, bounces, etc., giving some return content context. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe pagination, rate limits, or the exact report structure beyond the examples.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that uses the active verb 'Get' and includes useful metric examples in parentheses. There is no unnecessary repetition or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essentials but omits return format specifics (e.g., whether metrics are aggregated, time range) and error conditions. The metric examples are helpful, but 'etc.' leaves the report content open-ended.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter campaign_id is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description reinforces that the report is for a specific campaign but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a detailed performance report for a specific campaign, naming example metrics (opens, clicks, bounces). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_campaign (campaign settings) and list_reports (list of all reports).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for a specific campaign' implies usage when you have a campaign ID and need individual metrics, but there is no explicit comparison to alternatives like list_reports or exclusions for other use cases. Guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('get'), which implies no side effects, but it does not disclose the return format, error behavior, or any other operational details. For a simple getter, this is acceptable but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no unnecessary information, every word earns its place, and it is easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the action and resource, but it does not describe what 'details' includes or what the response looks like. For a simple getter, this may be sufficient, but a bit more detail on return structure would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter (folder_id) with a description 'The folder ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema already documents the parameter fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('file folder'), and it identifies the scope as 'a specific' folder, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_file_folders (which lists folders) and delete_file_folder (which deletes). This is a clear and unambiguous definition of the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that the tool is used when a folder_id is known and you need details for that specific folder, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives (e.g., list_file_folders for listing all folders) or provide any exclusions. The context is clear but not explicit about alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key behavioral detail that the tool returns the template's HTML content, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential errors, authorization requirements, or any other side effects. For a simple read-only GET, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence (9 words) and is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place—no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and clear sibling context, the description completely covers the essentials: what it operates on and what it returns (HTML content). It could mention that it returns other template fields, but that is not necessary for basic invocation. Suitable for a straightforward retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (template_id with type and description). The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already states. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('a specific template') with a distinctive detail ('with its HTML content'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_templates (list) and create/update/delete, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied via 'specific template' and the presence of list_templates as a sibling, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria. It meets the baseline for implied usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden; it states the operation is a list/read, but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or that 'all' is constrained by the `count` parameter. The description does not contradict any annotations (since none exist).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of six words, front-loading the action and object. It contains no filler or redundant phrases.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two optional parameters, the description is sufficient but minimal. It does not mention that results are paginated or describe the return shape, but the schema covers the pagination parameters and the name implies the return type. Given the low complexity, it is complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides complete descriptions for both `count` and `offset`, so the description does not need to explain them. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the direct object 'Mailchimp audiences' and clarifies with '(lists)' to disambiguate from other audience-related tools. It clearly contrasts with the singular `get_audience` sibling by indicating this returns all audiences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives like `get_audience`. The usage is implied by the word 'all', suggesting this is for retrieving multiple audiences, but the description does not explicitly exclude or recommend alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose behaviors like not-found handling, required permissions, or return format. For a simple getter, this is adequate but minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action, resource, identifying field, and container. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter get operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does. It lacks detail about return format, but that is less critical given the simplicity. It could be improved by noting expected response or error behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds that 'email' is the lookup key and 'list_id' identifies the audience, which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('member'), and specifies the unique lookup key ('by email') and scope ('from an audience'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_members or search_members by indicating a single, email-identified member.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'specific member by email' implies the tool is intended for retrieving one known member, distinct from listing or searching. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, such as 'use search_members when you don't have the exact email.' Still, the context is clear enough for most agents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List all' conveys a safe read operation and a scope of 'verified' domains, but it does not disclose pagination, response format, or error behavior. It is not misleading, but the disclosure is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and resource directly, earning its place with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list operation, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource category and the 'verified' filter. It omits details like return format or pagination, but with no output schema and simple semantics, these are minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter-level information to convey. Per baseline for 0 params, the description is not expected to compensate for missing param docs; the sentence adequately describes the tool's behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly names the resource ('all verified sending domains'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_verified_domain, which retrieves a single domain, and other list_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when collecting all verified sending domains, and sibling names (get_verified_domain) suggest a single-domain alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the basic action but does not disclose safety profile, authentication needs, or response format. For a ping/account info tool, this is minimal behavioral disclosure – it implies a read-only call but never explicitly says so.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and it is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it, but 'account info' is vague. It could specify what info is returned, but overall it is adequate for a simple ping endpoint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies as there are no parameter-related gaps to address.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action: 'Test connection and get Mailchimp account info' – a verb+resource pair that distinguishes this from sibling tools focused on specific resources (audiences, campaigns, members). It is immediately obvious what this tool does and how it differs from others.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: this is a connectivity/account info tool. Since no sibling tool provides account-level information, the usage is unambiguous. However, it lacks explicit when/when-not guidance, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Update' clearly signals a mutation, and 'existing' indicates the target must already exist. However, it does not clarify whether both fields can be updated simultaneously, what happens to unspecified fields, or permission requirements, which are relevant for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of seven words, with no redundant information or filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with complete schema and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The main gap is the ambiguity of 'or'—it might imply exclusive choice, while the schema allows both fields to be updated together. This prevents a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'New HTML content'). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only clarifying that these are for an existing template and that name or HTML are the updatable fields. This meets the baseline for schema-heavy coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an existing template's name or HTML' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating it modifies an existing template's fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_template, get_template, and delete_template.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use it: to modify a template's name or HTML. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the verb and resource make the context obvious, and no misleading guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one meaningful constraint ('max 10MB'), which is helpful, but it does not mention authentication requirements, overwrite behavior, success/failure responses, or any side effects. This is minimal but not severely deficient for a simple upload operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core function and a key constraint. It contains zero filler and earns every word.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple upload operation with a well-documented schema, the description is largely complete. It includes the important size limit, and the purpose is unambiguous. However, since there is no output schema, the description could have mentioned what the tool returns (e.g., the created file object), but this is not critical for an upload operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes all three parameters with full coverage (100%). The description adds no per-parameter details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The 'max 10MB' constraint is a global file size limit, not a parameter-specific semantic.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Upload'), the resource ('a file'), and the target ('Mailchimp file manager'), with a specific constraint ('max 10MB'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like list_files, get_file, and delete_file, which handle different operations on the same resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to upload a file into the Mailchimp file manager. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names (list_files, get_file, delete_file, create_file_folder) make the context obvious. This is a clear context with no exclusions, but without 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly highlights the destructive and irreversible nature of the operation, which is the most critical behavioral trait for a delete tool. It does not mention other aspects like permissions or error handling, but the key trait is covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately states the action and the critical caveat of irreversibility. No redundant information is present, and the parenthetical contrast adds value without extra words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context: the operation is permanent and contrasts with archive. It doesn't detail return values or edge cases, but the core behavioral context (irreversibility) is clearly communicated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already includes descriptions for both parameters (email and list_id) covering 100% of them. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Permanently delete a member from an audience') with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'archive_member' by explicitly noting irreversibility, making its unique purpose evident.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context by contrasting with 'archive' (reversible), implying that delete is used when permanent removal is desired. While it doesn't explicitly enumerate when/not to use, the contrast offers practical guidance for choosing between delete and archive.
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:

[![m6b9-mcp-mailchimp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Snouzy/m6b9-mcp-mailchimp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Snouzy/m6b9-mcp-mailchimp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![m6b9-mcp-mailchimp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Snouzy/m6b9-mcp-mailchimp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Snouzy/m6b9-mcp-mailchimp)

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Snouzy/m6b9-mcp-mailchimp'

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