@nebelov/yougile-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.5
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear prefixes like list/get/create/update/delete. Even similar sticker tools are differentiated by 'string' vs 'sprint' and 'state' sub-resource. No two tools appear to perform the same operation.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the consistent `yougile_<verb>_<noun>` pattern, using snake_case throughout. Verbs are standard (list/get/create/update/delete/set/invite/send), and nouns are singular for get/update and plural for list, which is conventional.
Tool Count1/5
With 57 tools, the server far exceeds the threshold for an extreme count (50+). While the domain is broad, this number creates a heavy cognitive load for agents and suggests over-fragmentation (e.g., separate string and sprint sticker tools could be unified).
Completeness5/5
The server provides full CRUD/lifecycle coverage for all major resources: projects, boards, columns, tasks, users, departments, roles, stickers, chats, messages, and webhooks. Soft-delete via update covers missing delete endpoints, and the API's lack of message editing is properly documented. No critical workflow dead ends are apparent.
Average 3.7/5 across 57 of 57 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it's a write operation. The description adds 'soft-delete' which aligns with the destructive hint, but it also introduces 'stickers' that is not in the schema, creating ambiguity. It doesn't explain consequences or revertibility beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and concise, fitting in a single sentence. However, the inclusion of 'stickers' is extraneous and not supported by the schema, which detracts from quality. It is not under-specified to the point of being useless, but the unnecessary word reduces effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the effects of setting 'deleted' to true, whether 'title' is optional, or what the response looks like. The inaccurate 'stickers' reference further reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds misleading information about 'stickers' that isn't a parameter. It doesn't clarify the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, and the extra mention could lead to incorrect invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates a board, with a specific verb and resource. However, it mentions 'stickers' which is not present in the input schema, causing minor confusion. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling update tools, but the resource is specific enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about typical use cases. The description simply states what it does, not when or why 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. However, the description does not disclose that results are paginated via limit/offset parameters, which is a behavioral trait beyond what annotations provide. It only adds the scope 'all', which 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff. However, it is so minimal that it omits useful context, but as a statement of purpose, it is 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, the description does not explain the return format or pagination behavior. It is adequate for the simplest understanding but incomplete for an agent needing to handle limit/offset or interpret the response structure.
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%, and both limit and offset have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional 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.
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 all departments, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from get_department by using 'list' instead of 'get', but does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other department-related tools or alternative listing tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual triggers 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?
The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the 'Create' action, and the annotations already convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. There is no extra context about uniqueness constraints, permission requirements, or effects on existing sprint stickers, which would be valuable 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 immediately states the purpose with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 3-parameter create tool with full schema coverage, this is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about return values, behavior on success/failure, or usage context, and does not help the agent choose between similar sibling 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all three parameters (name, color, stickerId) adequately. The description offers no additional parameter explanation or examples, so it earns 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 states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a state (option) for a sprint sticker'), which distinguishes it from similar tools like yougile_create_string_sticker_state. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or edge cases, so it slightly falls short of 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yougile_update_sprint_sticker_state or yougile_create_string_sticker_state. It does not include any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or side effects. The only additional info (projectId filter) is a usage detail already visible in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains zero redundancy or filler. It is immediately scannable and appropriately sized for a simple list 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 simple list operation, complete parameter schema, and clear annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of pagination, return behavior, or relationship to sibling tools like get_board, leaving some selection context 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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description mentions projectId but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the 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 tool lists boards, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguished from sibling tools by the verb 'list' versus 'get' or mutation verbs, though it doesn't explicitly call out the difference from yougile_get_board.
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 gives a single filtering scenario ('Filter by projectId to see boards for a specific project') but does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like yougile_get_board, 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?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already convey (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or what happens upon successful creation, so it adds minimal value over the structured data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording, and the key action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool, the annotations, and the complete schema, the description is adequate for an agent to understand what the tool does. It does not overpromise or omit critical information for a basic create operation, though it could mention whether users are optional or required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters ('title' and 'users'), and the descriptions are clear. The tool description itself adds no parameter guidance, so it neither improves nor worsens the understanding provided by 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) and the resource (department), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not provide additional context that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_department' or 'get_department', but the verb 'create' inherently sets it apart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and schema.
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 already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with the description. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations state—no mention of permissions, idempotency, side effects, or error behavior. It briefly adds the 'inside a project' scoping, but that is structural rather than behavioral.
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 redundant words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key verb and resource. 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 create tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks mention of return value, expected permissions, or behavior on invalid projectId. While no output schema exists, the description does not compensate by explaining what the agent can expect from the tool's result.
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% (both 'title' and 'projectId' have explicit descriptions). The description adds no further meaning; it merely restates the schema's parameters without any additional detail about their semantics or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is specific: 'Create a new board inside a project.' It names the verb ('create') and the resource ('board'), with a clear location constraint ('inside a project'). This distinguishes it from siblings like yougile_update_board, yougile_list_boards, and yougile_get_board.
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. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or explicitly reference sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the verb 'create'.
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 already convey readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), and the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not mention permissions, side effects (e.g., subdomain propagation), or any constraints beyond what annotations/schema provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with the verb front-loaded, efficiently listing typical fields. No wasted words or redundant restating of schema.
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 update tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. However, it omits any note about field optionality (though schema shows none required) and doesn't clarify the 'etc.' scope, leaving a minor gap in 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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'etc.' is vague and potentially misleading given additionalProperties: false limits fields to name and subdomain, adding no real semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('update') and resource ('company settings'), explicitly naming fields like name and subdomain. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only company-level update tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_company or other update tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the verb 'update' and the resource 'company settings', but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., get_company for reading). No exclusions or alternative tools 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?
Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context such as side effects, permissions, idempotency, or return behavior. The example structures are parameter-oriented, not behavioral.
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 sentences plus an example. The example earns its place given the complex nested object parameters. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description, combined with the fully documented schema, covers all inputs needed to invoke the tool. While there's no output schema and no mention of return values, the tool is a straightforward create operation and the provided example adequately clarifies the expected input structure.
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 describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example showing how to structure the nested maps, which is helpful, but it doesn't provide new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents.
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 'Create a group chat' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_group_chat, list_group_chats, and update_group_chat. The purpose is immediately 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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond listing required parameters. It only says 'Requires users map, userRoleMap, and roleConfigMap', which is more about parameter completeness than 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, data freshness, or auth requirements. It merely restates the name's verb.
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 no redundant words. It is concise, front-loaded, and directly states the tool's function.
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, the description should clarify what 'company information' includes (e.g., name, ID, settings), but it does not. The description is minimal and leaves the return contents unspecified, making it incomplete for an agent needing to anticipate the response.
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 the baseline is 4. The description confirms no input is needed by stating 'current company information' without mentioning arguments, which is adequate given the schema is empty.
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 'Get current company information' clearly states the action (get) and resource (current company information), distinguishing it from sibling tools like yougile_update_company and other getters targeting different entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with update_company or other retrieval 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, result limits, or filtering options; it only restates the resource scope without revealing any constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the purpose without any filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage of parameters, the description is mostly complete. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or filtering, but these are adequately covered by the schema, so the description remains sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all three parameters (limit, title, offset) with a 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to explain them. However, it also does not add any extra meaning, such as noting that 'all' results can be filtered or paginated, so it earns the baseline score.
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 'List all group chats in the company,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like yougile_get_group_chat, yougile_create_group_chat, and yougile_update_group_chat by focusing on listing all group chats.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of alternatives like yougile_get_group_chat, and no exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what it does, leaving usage context to the agent to infer.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety is well covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail that states are embedded in each sticker object, but doesn't elaborate on state structure or pagination 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 two short, focused sentences with the core verb phrase first. The parenthetical adds essential context about what stickers are, and the second sentence provides a structural note without 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 simple list operation with robust annotations and full parameter schemas, the description covers the essentials: what is listed and a key structural detail (embedded states). It doesn't mention pagination or filtering options, but those are already in the schema, and no output schema exists.
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%, meaning all three parameters (limit, offset, projectId) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists sprint stickers and clarifies them as sprint/iteration labels for tasks, giving a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from list_string_stickers by naming 'sprint' instead of 'string', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings.
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 get_sprint_sticker or list_string_stickers. There is no mention of when to filter by projectId or when a list operation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is already disclosed. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations and the schema provide—it doesn't explain partial vs full replacement, idempotency, or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is efficient and clear. It earns its place but is minimal, leaving some behavioral details to the schema.
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 update tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the resource and fields but doesn't explain what the update returns or any side effects. Given the annotations and schema richness, this is sufficient but has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'New role name', 'Replace user list'). The description restates 'name, users' but adds no meaning 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?
Description uses specific verb+resource: 'Update a project role' and lists the fields (name, users). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project_role, delete_project_role, get_project_role, and list_project_roles.
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 by the update verb and the existence of sibling create/delete tools, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., role must exist).
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 already flag this as non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false), so the description adds little behavioral context. It mentions 'Color is 1-16' but that's parameter information, not behavior. There is no mention of what the tool returns, side effects, or failure conditions, which is notable since there is 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?
The description is extremely concise at two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary detail, apart from the slightly redundant color note, but this does not detract from clarity.
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, the description covers the essential purpose. However, because there is no output schema and limited annotations, the description could provide more context about expected return values or potential errors. Still, the schema enriches parameter info adequately, making it minimally 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described and color having min/max constraints. The description's 'Color is 1-16' only repeats schema information, adding no new semantic meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action: 'Create a new column inside a board.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like yougile_list_columns, yougile_get_column, and yougile_update_column.
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 when to use the tool (to create a column) but provides no explicit context about alternatives or prerequisites. It does not mention using list_columns to check existing columns or update_column for modifications, so usage guidance is minimal.
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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. The field note ('not title') is a useful clarification, but the description does not mention side effects, return values, or related entities. It is honest 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key parameter detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create tool with only two fully documented parameters and a clear resource type, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks a brief explanation of what a sprint sticker is or what the response contains, but this is minor given the low complexity.
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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by warning against using the 'title' field (which might be a common mistake) and by reinforcing that 'name' is the correct field.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Create a sprint sticker') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the resource type ('sprint sticker') from similar siblings like 'string sticker', though it doesn't explicitly call out the alternative.
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 other create tools (e.g., create_string_sticker, create_task). The only tip ('Use name field, not title') addresses parameter usage, not tool selection or contextual prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds minimal context by specifying the removal is from the 'company', but does not disclose whether this is permanent, what happens to the user's data, or any authorization 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 one concise sentence without fluff. It front-loads the action and is appropriately small for a simple delete 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?
Given the simple one-parameter schema and destructive annotation, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks context on side effects (e.g., whether removal is permanent, impact on projects/tasks). There is no output schema, so return values are not documented.
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 the single 'id' parameter as a User UUID (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as how to obtain the id or format expectations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Remove a user') and the scope ('from the company'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_user, invite_user, and list_users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, consequences, or alternate approaches such as deactivating vs deleting. It relies solely on the tool name and destructive annotation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already convey (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not describe return format, not-found behavior, or any additional side effects, leaving the agent without useful details beyond the safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that directly conveys the tool's function with no filler or redundant information. 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 get-by-id tool with one parameter and clear annotations, the description is sufficient for basic invocation, but it leaves the return value undefined ('details' is vague). With no output schema, a bit more specificity about what details are 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?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, including a description ('Column UUID'). The description's mention of 'by ID' adds no new semantic value, so the schema carries the burden and 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('specific column') and distinguishes this from sibling tools like yougile_list_columns (which lists columns) and mutation tools. The 'by ID' qualifier makes the scope 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 the tool is for retrieving a single column when its ID is known, in contrast to listing all columns, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like yougile_list_columns or mention any exclusions. Usage context is clear enough but not explicitly articulated.
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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the literal action; it does not disclose return format, possible errors, or any side effects, but for a read-only get tool this is acceptable.
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, short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no irrelevant information. 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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema) and the description is adequate, but it lacks detail about what 'details' includes. There is no mention of the return structure, which could be important for an agent deciding how to use the result.
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 'id' described as 'Department UUID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but with full 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 'Get details of a specific department' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('department'), with a clear scope ('specific' by id). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'yougile_list_departments' (list all vs single).
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 it retrieves a single department by UUID or that list_departments is for retrieving multiple departments, 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating 'Get'. It doesn't mention return format, error cases, or permissions, providing no value beyond the structured data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. 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?
The tool is simple with two clear parameters and no output schema, but the description lacks any detail about the response structure or potential edge cases. It is adequate 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters described as UUIDs. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific role in a project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list, create, update, and delete. It accurately conveys the intended operation.
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 retrieving a single role by ID, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It offers no guidance on when to use this over list_project_roles or other getters.
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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the fact that it is a read operation; it does not mention response format, error behavior, authentication needs, or any other non-obvious traits. Since the description must add value beyond annotations, it falls short.
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 action, target, and input criterion with no redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise.
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 annotations and full parameter coverage, the description is minimally viable but lacks crucial context. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what 'details' entails or what the return value looks like, but it does not. It also doesn't mention behavior when the user is not found, making it incomplete for a standalone 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' already described as 'User UUID'. The description's 'by ID' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific user'), clearly indicating the tool's action and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like yougile_list_users (which returns multiple users) and yougile_delete_user (which removes a user), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a user ID and need specific user details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yougile_list_users. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so usage context is only implied rather than clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The destructiveHint annotation already indicates the operation may be destructive, but the description adds no additional context about side effects (e.g., what happens to stickers using the state when it is renamed or soft-deleted). It only repeats the hex ID format, which is already in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two short sentences that immediately state the action and a key constraint. No 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?
Given the schema fully documents parameters and annotations indicate destructive potential, the description is minimally sufficient for invocation. However, it misses important context about the consequences of changing or deleting a state, which would be helpful for a mutating tool with no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all five parameters, so the schema carries the burden. The description's note about State IDs being 12-char hex strings adds no value beyond the schema's own parameter 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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Update a state of a sprint sticker') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_sprint_sticker_state and update_string_sticker_state. It also provides a useful detail about State IDs being 12-char hex strings.
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 usage is implied: you use this tool to update an existing sprint sticker state. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context about side effects, idempotency, or validation. It is consistent with annotations but does not go beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, and the 'event' parameter lacks an enum or any guidance on valid values, making it difficult for an agent to invoke correctly. The description does not compensate for this ambiguity, leaving a significant gap in knowing what to pass.
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, providing clear descriptions for url, event, and projectId. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a webhook to receive events at a URL, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_webhooks and update_webhook, which serve different lifecycle operations.
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 is implied by the verb 'create', but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_webhook, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context suggests it's for new webhook creation but doesn't elaborate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'by email' as a behavioral detail not present in annotations, indicating the invitation mechanism. However, it does not disclose other traits such as side effects, permission requirements, or behavior when the user already exists. With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false, the added value is marginal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It communicates the core action and method efficiently.
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 two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the core purpose and method, and the annotations cover safety traits. Some additional context about invitation behavior could be added, but it is not critically 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%, with both 'email' and 'isAdmin' clearly described in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, 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 ('invite') and resource ('user to the company'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like yougile_delete_user and yougile_update_user. The action and scope are unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools for user management, 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the scope 'for a project' (already present as projectId in schema). No mention of pagination, ordering, or return structure.
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 clarifying the tool's scope, making it highly concise.
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 read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and strong annotations, the description is adequate. It clearly states the action and scope, though it could optionally mention that it returns a list of roles or any pagination.
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 projectId described as 'Project UUID'. The description's 'for a project' adds no extra meaning 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 'List roles for a project' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('roles') with a clear scope (project). It distinguishes from siblings like yougile_get_project_role (single role) and other list tools (columns, tasks).
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 want all roles for a given project. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over yougile_get_project_role or create/update/delete role tools, lacking alternative mentions 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?
Annotations already indicate non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the tool creates a role, which is consistent with annotations, but it does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as permission requirements, duplicate name handling, or user assignment behavior. The description is minimally adequate given the annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose without any filler or redundant information. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create operation with no output schema, this one-sentence description is sufficient. The input schema fully documents parameters, and annotations cover the safety profile. There are no complex edge cases or additional context needed for this 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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including types, required fields, and descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema already handles the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new role in a project' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like yougile_create_project, yougile_update_project_role, and role list/get tools by explicitly targeting role creation.
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. While sibling tools like yougile_list_project_roles, yougile_get_project_role, yougile_update_project_role, and yougile_delete_project_role exist, the description does not mention them or any conditions for choosing this tool.
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?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already establish this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds the definition of a state as an 'option' but does not disclose effects like persistence, uniqueness, or return behavior beyond what annotations imply.
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. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, making it immediately understandable.
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 adequate for a simple create operation given full schema and annotations, but it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., sticker must exist) or what happens on success (return value), which would be valuable since there is no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%—all three parameters (name, color, stickerId) have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics; it relies on the schema for parameter meaning.
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 identifies the resource as 'a state (option) for a string sticker', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_sprint_sticker_state or create_string_sticker. The parenthetical 'option' adds helpful context.
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 is implied by the verb 'Create' and the resource name, but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus updating an existing state or creating a sticker. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states that it creates a project and optionally assigns users with roles, which is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). However, it does not disclose important behavioral details such as whether the project creation requires specific permissions, what happens if invalid roles are provided, or whether a message is returned. No contradiction with annotations is present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the key additional detail about user roles in a compact way.
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 create operation with two parameters fully described in the schema, the description is adequate. It lacks information about the return value (e.g., the created project object), but given no output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool, this is a minor gap. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?
Both parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds the word 'Optionally' to clarify that user assignment is not required and reiterates the role enum (admin/worker/observer), but this adds marginal value beyond the schema's property descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Create a new project', which is a specific verb+resource and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like yougile_list_projects, yougile_get_project, and yougile_update_project. It also mentions optional user assignment with roles, adding further clarity.
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 project, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear for a create operation, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what to check beforehand.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the deletion is 'soft,' which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation. It also explicitly notes that editing message text is not supported, providing useful API constraints. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a valuable constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with two well-described parameters, a destructiveHint annotation, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the soft-delete behavior and a key API limitation. The simplicity of the tool means less additional context is required, though it stops short of fully complete 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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both chatId and messageId. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Soft-delete a message.' The verb 'delete' and resource 'message' are specific and unambiguous. The added note about editing text not being supported distinguishes this from potential update operations, clarifying scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention alternatives like send_message or get_message, nor does it provide conditions for choosing this tool. The note about editing not being supported is a limitation, not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable context by stating 'hard delete, not soft-delete,' clarifying permanence and irreversibility. This exceeds the annotation's baseline without contradicting it.
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 key behavioral distinction. There is no wasted wording.
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 two-parameter deletion tool with a destructiveHint annotation and no output schema, the description adequately communicates the tool's purpose and behavior. It could mention downstream effects, but the hard-delete note plus annotations are sufficient for minimal viable 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 input schema fully documents both parameters (roleId and projectId as UUIDs), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.
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' with the resource 'project role' and adds the distinction 'hard delete, not soft-delete.' This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling tools like get, create, and update project role.
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 update_project_role or get_project_role. The hard-delete clarification is behavioral, not usage guidance, so the agent is left without context for choosing this tool.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the 'by ID' scoping constraint, but doesn't provide additional behavioral context such as return format, error handling, or required permissions. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any filler or redundancy. Every word contributes value, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter, good annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it tells the agent what the tool does ('get details') and what is needed (the board's ID). It could mention what 'details' includes, but that is not critical for tool selection or 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?
The input schema has 100% coverage, documenting 'id' as a 'Board UUID'. The description only restates that the tool operates on a specific board by ID, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('board') and the scoping mechanism ('by ID'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like yougile_list_boards (which lists all boards) and yougile_create_board/update_board (which modify boards), leaving no ambiguity 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case: you need a board's UUID to retrieve its details. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor mention that yougile_list_boards could be used to find the ID if unknown. The usage context is clear but not fully articulated.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the semantic context of 'task's chat notifications,' but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or potential absence of results. It is consistent with annotations and adds minimal value beyond them.
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 the purpose without any wasted words or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is sufficient. Annotations cover safety, the schema covers the parameter, and the description covers the resource. It does not describe return format, but that is not expected for such a basic getter. Slight room for improvement exists in mentioning alternative tools or edge cases.
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 the single parameter 'taskId,' described as 'Task UUID.' The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('list of users subscribed to a task's chat notifications'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool yougile_set_chat_subscribers, which performs the opposite operation.
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 (simply retrieve subscribers for a task) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria. The context is clear enough for a simple getter, but no explicit guidance is given.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., error behavior, permissions), but it is consistent with the read-only nature.
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 concise sentence with no redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to purpose.
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 get-by-id tool, the description and schema are sufficient. No output schema exists, but return value is implied by 'details.' Sibling tools provide context for the group chat domain.
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 provides full description for id ('Group chat UUID') at 100% coverage. Description does not add extra 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?
States verb 'get' + resource 'specific group chat', clearly indicating a single-resource retrieval. Differentiates from list_group_chats and other get_* tools via the word 'specific' and required 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like list_group_chats. The word 'specific' implies a single entity, and the required id indicates prior knowledge, but no alternative tools 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context such as access requirements, error handling, or response format. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the basic function.
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 short sentence with no 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 single-ID read operation, the description is sufficient. It clearly identifies the resource and scope. No output schema exists, but the term 'details' is functionally adequate for a get-by-ID operation, though specifying the returned fields would make it more 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with the id parameter clearly described as 'Project UUID'. The description only repeats 'by ID' and adds no semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with resource 'details of a specific project' and explicit scope 'by ID', clearly distinguishing it from list_projects (which lists all projects) and create/update variants. 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description implies use when a specific project ID is known and its details are needed, but it does not mention list_projects as an alternative for retrieving multiple projects, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the tool returns project names, IDs, and user roles, which is useful context not in the annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or any other side effects, but with annotations covering the main concerns, this is adequate.
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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and immediately states the return contents. No wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, read-only list tool with full parameter schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is sufficient. It mentions return fields, which is helpful since there is no output schema. It does not explicitly mention pagination, but the schema parameters (limit, offset) cover that, so the overall context 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (limit, title, offset) already have descriptive comments. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, leaving the schema to provide the necessary semantics. 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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('projects in the YouGile company'), and distinguishes this list operation from sibling tools like get_project by specifying the returned fields (names, IDs, user roles). This is unambiguous and differentiates from other list tools (columns, tasks, etc.).
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 to list all projects—but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like get_project for a single project, or how to combine with filters. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, leaving usage context implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful response behavior by noting that 'States are embedded in each sticker object,' which informs the agent about the shape of the returned data beyond the schema. It does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that opens with the verb, includes a clarifying parenthetical, and a compact note on states. No superfluous content; it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description covers the core purpose and one behavioral nuance (embedded states). However, it does not mention alternatives or pagination behavior beyond the schema, so it is complete but not exhaustive.
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 (limit, offset, projectId) have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description provides no additional parameter-level 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.
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 identifies the exact resource ('string stickers') with an explanatory parenthesis ('custom labels/tags for tasks'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like yougile_list_sprint_stickers and from CRUD operations on string stickers.
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 yougile_list_sprint_stickers or the individual yougile_get_string_sticker. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description matches this. It adds the fact that state IDs are 12-char hex strings but doesn't disclose side effects like what happens to tasks using the state or whether deleted=true performs a soft-delete.
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 of 12 words, front-loaded with the verb. No filler or redundant content.
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 update operation with high schema coverage and annotation flags, the description covers the essentials. It lacks context about which mutable fields are available (though schema provides that) and no output is expected, so completeness is adequate.
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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds a format hint for stateId that repeats the schema's '12-char hex' text. It provides no additional semantics about required vs optional fields or parameter relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the target resource ('a state of a string sticker'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like yougile_update_string_sticker (updates the sticker itself) and yougile_update_sprint_sticker_state (updates a sprint sticker state). It includes a specific detail about state ID format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description implies this tool is for modifying an existing string sticker state but doesn't mention when to prefer create_string_sticker_state or how it relates to other update tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and adds no contradictory information. It does not provide additional behavioral context such as error handling, pagination, or auth requirements, but for a simple read operation the annotations already cover the core safety profile.
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 fluff or repetition. It immediately conveys the action and target resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is complete. It does not need to explain return values or elaborate further; the tool's expected behavior is unambiguous.
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 required parameters (chatId and messageId). The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: 'a specific message by ID from a chat.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_messages, send_message, and delete_message, which handle different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied by the phrase 'specific message by ID,' indicating it is for retrieving a single message rather than listing all messages. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag this as destructive (destructiveHint=true), and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that 'deleted' triggers a soft-delete and that '-' in the users map removes a user. It does not describe permissions or irreversibility, but the added details go beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. It is both concise and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main fields and the soft-delete behavior, but it does not mention what the response looks like (no output schema), whether updates are partial or full replacement, or any prerequisites. For a 4-parameter update tool with a nested object, the description is adequate but leaves some operational 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 clear per-parameter descriptions (e.g., 'userId -> role map', 'true to soft-delete'). The description text largely repeats the schema's 'Use '-' as role value to remove a user' without adding new semantics. Baseline 3 applies 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 updates a project and enumerates the specific updatable aspects (title, users, soft-delete). It uses a strong verb ('update') with a clear resource ('project'), and the explicit mention of soft-delete distinguishes it from simple create/list/get 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for modifying a project but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives. It does provide a specific usage hint for removing users via '-' as a role value, but this is parameter-level guidance rather than tool-selection guidance. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.
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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the 'soft-delete' behavior but does not clarify partial vs full update semantics or any side effects, providing only minimal additional 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource, and includes all relevant fields with no filler or redundant 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?
The description adequately identifies the purpose and mutable fields, but it omits return value/response format and update semantics (e.g., partial vs full update). The schema covers parameters, yet the absence of output schema leaves some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description merely restates the field names without adding semantic depth 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?
States explicit action 'Update' and resource 'webhook', and enumerates the updatable fields (url, event, disabled, soft-delete), clearly distinguishing it from create/list webhook sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The verb 'Update' and resource make the usage context obvious (modify an existing webhook), but the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, implying a write operation. The description's 'Create' is consistent with this. The added 'Use name field (not title)' is a parameter clarification, not a behavioral disclosure. No additional behavioral context (e.g., side effects, required permissions) is given, but the annotations cover the safety profile sufficiently.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences that lead with the purpose and follow with a key parameter tip. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient for agent parsing.
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 create tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and a critical param hint. It does not mention return values, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this acceptable. The description is sufficient to guide correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides full documentation for both parameters (name and projectId). The description adds valuable nuance by explicitly instructing to use 'name' rather than 'title', which prevents a likely mistake. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Create a string sticker.' This accurately distinguishes it from siblings like yougile_create_string_sticker_state and yougile_create_sprint_sticker. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. The usage is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no guidance on when this tool is appropriate versus other sticker-related operations. No exclusions or alternative recommendations 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by detailing what fields are returned, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error conditions, required permissions, or response structure beyond the field list. This is acceptable given the annotations, but not particularly 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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and lists concrete examples of returned data. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundant information. It is highly concise and structured for quick scanning.
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?
With one parameter and no output schema, the description compensates by listing the major return fields (title, description, assigned users, deadline, checklists, stickers, time tracking), giving the agent a good sense of what it will receive. It stops short of describing the exact response format or handling of missing tasks, but for a simple getter with strong annotations, this is nearly 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 schema already defines the single parameter 'id' as a 'Task UUID' with 100% description coverage. The tool description does not add any further semantics about the id parameter, but none are needed since the schema is self-explanatory. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('task'), and enumerates the details returned (title, description, assigned users, deadline, checklists, stickers, time tracking). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like yougile_list_tasks, which lists tasks rather than retrieving a single task's full details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for retrieving comprehensive details for one task, distinct from listing tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over yougile_list_tasks or other task-related tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is clear from the verb and resource, but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, matching the read-only nature of 'List columns'. The description adds boardId scoping but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination behavior or result ordering, so it adds modest value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words or redundant elaboration.
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 thorough schema descriptions and safety annotations, the description is adequate. It does not mention pagination or return shape, but those are reasonably covered by the schema parameters and the absence of an output schema makes this acceptable.
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 four parameters (limit, title, offset, boardId), so the baseline is 3. The description repeats boardId filtering but adds no new detail beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('columns'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like yougile_get_column (single column retrieval) and mutation tools. The mention of boardId filtering further clarifies the list scope.
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?
It provides clear context: use list_columns to retrieve columns, optionally scoped by a specific board. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the simple list use case is evident from the description and sibling tool names.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds the scope ('Also works for group chats') and the chatId mapping, but does not disclose pagination/ordering behavior or return details. Minimal additional behavioral context beyond annotations, so score is 3.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three short sentences. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the critical chatId mapping and group chat compatibility in the following sentences. No wasted 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 read-only list operation with good annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient: it states the purpose, the chatId mapping, and compatibility with group chats. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over yougile_get_message and does not explain return value structure, but the absence of an output schema and simplicity of the tool keep the gap modest.
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 descriptions cover all 6 parameters (100% coverage), including the chatId explanation 'for task chats, this equals the task UUID'. The tool description redundantly states this mapping but also clarifies that chatId applies to group chats, slightly augmenting the schema. Baseline 3 due to high schema coverage, with minor added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get messages from a chat' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like yougile_get_message/send_message/delete_message by implying list semantics. It adds the chatId mapping for task chats, making the purpose unambiguous. Context about group chats broadens the scope clearly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use it: for both task chats and group chats, with the explicit rule 'chatId = taskId' for task chats. However, it does not reference alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use yougile_get_message for a single message'), so guidance is context-rich but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the company-wide scope and filter options, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior or return format. With annotations covering safety, the description adds marginal behavioral context, similar to the get_calls calibration example.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. Every word adds value: 'List all users (employees) in the company' and 'Can filter by email or projectId.' Extremely concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, annotations (read-only safe), and 100% schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It states the core action and available filters. It doesn't explicitly mention pagination defaults, but the schema includes limit/offset with descriptions. For a list tool, this is adequately 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all four parameters ('email', 'limit', 'offset', 'projectId'). The description mentions filtering by 'email or projectId', which is redundant with the schema. No additional semantics or examples are provided, 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 tool's function: 'List all users (employees) in the company.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('users'), and the scope ('in the company') distinguishes it from sibling tools like yougile_get_user (single user) and yougile_delete_user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for use: it lists all users and supports filtering by email or projectId. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the tool's purpose as a list endpoint is evident. Sibling tools like get_user or delete_user are obviously different.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable context by specifying that deletion is a 'soft-delete' and that moving to another board is supported. This goes beyond the schema's bare parameter docs, though it does not detail side effects on associated tasks.
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 primary action and lists the main update targets. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary detail 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 update operation with a well-defined schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It identifies the resource, the mutable fields, and the special 'soft-delete' behavior. No output schema is needed, and the lack of edge-case details is acceptable for this 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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), and the tool description essentially restates the schema's parameter meanings (e.g., boardId = 'move to another board', deleted = 'soft-delete'). The description adds no extra semantics beyond grouping operations, 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 clearly states a specific action ('Update a column') and enumerates the exact fields and operations (title, color, move to another board, soft-delete). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_column, list_columns, get_column, and update_task.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating what the tool does, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like create_column or update_board. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so the usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds the 'soft-delete' action, which aligns with the destructive hint. However, it doesn't explain the implication of replacing the user list or whether the operation is partial or full replacement, though the schema covers 'Replace user list'.
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 ('Update') and lists the updatable aspects. Zero wasted words, highly scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the schema provides full parameter descriptions and annotations indicate destructive behavior, the description is adequate for agent selection and invocation. It covers the core purpose and main fields, though it doesn't elaborate on return value or edge cases, which is not required here.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond mapping the parameters to fields (title, users, soft-delete), which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update a department' with specific updatable fields (title, users, soft-delete), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_department, get_department, and list_departments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this when you need to modify an existing department's title, users, or soft-delete status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear given the verb 'update' and the listed fields.
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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutation. The description adds 'soft-delete' context, which aligns with the destructive hint, but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as whether updates are reversible or if title/users are replaced atomically.
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 clear and free of filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists the key updateable fields efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple update operation, 4 parameters, and complete schema descriptions, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It lacks explicit return value info, but no output schema exists and the semantics are obvious for an update 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%, so all parameters (id, title, users, deleted) are already documented. The description merely lists parameter names without adding semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score.
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 a group chat (title, users, or soft-delete)' names a specific verb and resource, and clearly lists the updatable aspects. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, get, or list group chats by focusing on update operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when modifying an existing group chat, which is clear from the verb 'update'. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is straightforward and no competing update tool for group chats exists among siblings.
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?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds the specific 'soft-delete' behavior, which is useful beyond the generic annotation. It does not contradict annotations and avoids overexplaining obvious traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a crucial parameter clarification. Every word is purposeful; there is no redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers required context: what the tool does and a key field naming pitfall. It could mention outcomes like successful return values, but the schema and annotations already provide sufficient operational context for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds extra value by warning to use 'name' (not 'title'), which is a parameter-usage clarification not present in the schema. This helps prevent a common mistake and justifies a score above the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates a string sticker, specifying the two update actions: renaming and soft-deleting. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the sticker itself, not its state (which is handled by a separate tool). The additional 'Use name field (not title)' clarification further disambiguates the intended API contract.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: if you need to rename or soft-delete a string sticker, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like update_string_sticker_state for state-related changes, nor does it provide scenarios where one should prefer a different tool. The guidance is limited but not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by revealing that states are included in the response, saving the agent from expecting a separate state endpoint. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the operation and include a useful response characteristic. No filler or redundant explanation.
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 read operation with one parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It names the trigger (ID), the operation, and a key response feature (embedded states). A richer return-format description would be nice but isn't necessary for this tool's simplicity.
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, 'id', is already fully described in the schema as 'Sticker UUID' with 100% coverage. The description restates the ID requirement but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. 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?
Clear and specific: 'Get a string sticker by ID' identifies the exact operation and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as list/create/update string stickers by focusing on retrieval by identifier. The additional 'States are embedded in the response' clarifies an important aspect of the result.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage: use when you have the sticker UUID and need a single string sticker. It does not explicitly name alternatives like yougile_list_string_stickers for browsing, but the simple get-by-ID pattern is evident. The note about embedded states suggests you don't need a separate state-fetch call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description enhances the annotations by revealing that the response is a raw array with no paging wrapper, which is a key behavioral detail for agents handling the output. The annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior, and this note adds context beyond that without conflicting. Slight additional detail about item structure would improve it further.
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 entire description is two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by a valuable, concise note about the response format. Every word earns its place, with 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.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists and the shape of the response. Given that there is no output schema, noting the raw array is helpful. It could be more complete by describing the type of items in the array, but this is a minor gap for such a straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage (100%). The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none. The note about return format is more relevant than parameter 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 and resource ('List all webhooks') that unambiguously identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools by naming the exact resource type. Even without mentioning alternatives, the purpose is crystal clear.
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 retrieving webhooks, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or note any exclusions. Given the tool's name and context, the intended usage is clear, but there is no explicit guidance or differentiation from other listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by explaining the chatId relationship and confirming group chat support. This supplements the annotations without contradiction.
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 consists of two short, direct sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the additional detail is immediately relevant.
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 tool with complete schema annotations and no output schema, the description provides key context (chatId mapping, group chat support). It could mention potential requirements like chat membership, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool 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 covers both parameters with descriptions (text and chatId). The description essentially repeats the chatId = taskId mapping already present in the schema, so it adds no significant new parameter meaning beyond the high coverage baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with the verb 'Send' and resource 'chat', distinguishing it from sibling message tools like list_messages, get_message, and delete_message. It also provides specific detail about chatId mapping for task chats.
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?
Provides clear usage context: chatId = taskId for task chats, and also works for group chats. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the tool's purpose is self-evident relative to the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'soft-delete' phrase clarifies that the destructive action is non-permanent, adding nuance beyond the raw annotation. It does not detail side effects or return values, but this is acceptable given the annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose and scope; the second provides a critical parameter usage note. 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 update tool with a full schema and a destructive hint annotation, the description is adequate. It specifies the allowed actions and the parameter naming pitfall. The lack of return-value information is acceptable given no output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds a practical hint 'Use name field (not title)' that helps avoid common naming mistakes. It also confirms that the deleted flag is for soft-delete, aligning with the schema's 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?
The description states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'sprint sticker', and enumerates the specific actions ('name or soft-delete'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like yougile_update_string_sticker or yougile_update_sprint_sticker_state.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create, get, or list). The context is implied by the 'update' verb and the mention of soft-delete, but no direct guidance or alternative exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: the soft-delete mechanism (deleted=true) and how to delete deadline/time tracking via nested {deleted:true}. It also discloses that certain fields can be removed, which goes beyond the schema and annotations. No contradictions found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately front-loaded with 'Update a task' and then lists the mutable fields and key deletion semantics. It is compact given the number of fields, though the list could be seen as slightly verbose. Each sentence earns its place, with 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?
The tool is complex (14 parameters, nested objects) with no output schema, and the description provides a high-level overview plus important deletion notes. However, it does not describe the return value, error behavior, or prerequisites (e.g., permissions), which would be helpful given the rich schema. The schema covers parameter details, but the description could offer more guidance on expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the non-obvious deletion behavior for deadline/timeTracking and the soft-delete flag, which are not fully obvious from the schema alone. It doesn't repeat all parameter details but supplements the schema effectively.
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 'Update a task' and enumerates the mutable fields, making it distinct from sibling tools like create_task, get_task, and list_tasks. The verb 'update' plus resource 'task' is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (to modify an existing task) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as 'use yougile_create_task to create a new task.' The listing of mutable fields provides clear context for what can be changed, though no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write operation. The description adds a key constraint: only admin status can be changed, which prevents misuse. No side effects or permissions are disclosed, but the scope is simple and well-defined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Update a user') and then the scope ('Only supports changing admin status'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. The annotations cover safety traits, and the description clarifies the exact change permitted, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both id and isAdmin fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates a user and immediately scopes it to 'only supports changing admin status.' This makes the purpose specific and distinguishes it from other update tools for different resources (columns, tasks, etc.) and from invite/delete user tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Only supports changing admin status' gives an explicit exclusion, telling the agent when not to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when you need to update a user's admin status,' but that is clearly implied by the scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: columnless tasks are nested under a parent and do not appear as board cards. It doesn't cover auth/reversibility, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact enumeration of supported fields. Every word earns its place, and the structure is scannable for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is complex (10 params, nested objects, no output schema), and the description does a strong job covering the two operational modes and the supported feature set. However, it doesn't mention what the tool returns (e.g., created task ID or object), which is needed since no output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters in detail. The description recaps parameter names and some values (e.g., color enum) but adds no significant new semantics 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 starts with 'Create a new task' — a specific verb + resource — and immediately differentiates board tasks from columnless subtasks. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create_* tools (create_column, create_project, etc.) and from update_task.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly instructs when to provide columnId (to place on a board) and when to OMIT it (to create a columnless subtask), then links via the parent's subtasks. This gives the agent unambiguous guidance for both usage modes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating 'States are embedded in the response', giving the agent an expectation about the response structure beyond the basic read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds a valuable behavioral note. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity—one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations—the description is largely complete. It states the purpose and mentions that states are embedded, but could optionally mention error behavior or a connection to sibling tools; still, it is adequate for a simple get tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes the parameter 'id' as 'Sticker UUID', which is generic. The description clarifies that it refers to a 'sprint sticker', adding specificity. With 100% schema coverage, this extra clarification raises the value above baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a sprint sticker by ID', which is a specific verb + resource + scope. It distinguishes the tool from listing, creating, updating, and other get operations, and adds that states are embedded in the response.
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 'by ID' clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving a single sprint sticker when the ID is known. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_sprint_stickers, but the usage context is clear and not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the specific /task-list endpoint and noting its broader filter support relative to /tasks, which gives the agent extra behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second delivers usage guidance and endpoint context. Every clause earns its place, and the structure 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 six-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential points: purpose, filter usage, endpoint identity, and read-only nature. It doesn't describe the response format, but 'List tasks' strongly implies an array of task objects, and the schema covers all parameter handling. Given the annotations and schema richness, this is complete enough.
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?
All 6 parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful grouping and prioritization of filter parameters (columnId vs. assignedTo/stickerId/title), clarifying how they map to different use cases. This goes beyond parameter descriptions by suggesting which filters are primary and which are 'advanced.'
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 opens with 'List tasks with filters,' a specific verb+resource combination that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like yougile_get_task (single task) and yougile_create_task/update_task (mutations) by its list/filter scope, and further differentiates from a hypothetical /tasks endpoint by noting it uses /task-list which supports more filters.
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?
Provides concrete usage guidance on how to apply filters, distinguishing columnId for column-specific retrieval from assignedTo/stickerId/title for advanced filtering. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the endpoint comparison ('supports more filters than /tasks') implies a preferred use case for broader filtering scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive hints, but the description adds the key behavioral detail that the existing list is replaced, not merged. This goes beyond the simple 'set' phrasing and clarifies that any users not in the new list will be unsubscribed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the action verb and resource. Every word adds value, and the critical 'Replaces existing list' clause earns its place. There is no unnecessary fluff 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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It states what the tool does and the key override behavior. Minor gaps like whether an empty list is allowed or what is returned are not critical for such a straightforward setter.
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% (taskId and userIds both have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that userIds represent the complete replacement set, not an incremental update, which strengthens the semantic meaning beyond the schema's 'Array of user UUIDs to subscribe'.
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' and identifies the resource ('list of users subscribed to a task's chat notifications'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The phrase 'Replaces existing list' also distinguishes it from sibling tools like the getter yougile_get_chat_subscribers.
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 indicates this is a full-replacement operation ('Replaces existing list'), which tells the agent when to use it and what to expect. While it doesn't explicitly name an alternative, the only sibling is a getter, so the usage context is clear without needing an explicit exclusion.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Sunscrypt/yougile-mcp'

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