Multi-MCPs

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes across different domains (e.g., Trello, GitHub, weather), but there is some overlap within domains, such as 'get_weather_forecast' and 'get_current_weather' potentially confusing agents about which to use for basic weather needs. Descriptions help clarify, but the broad scope introduces minor ambiguity.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names largely follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., 'create_card', 'get_boards', 'search_photos'), with minor deviations like 'geocode_address' (verb_noun but not a common verb) and 'make_call' (less structured). Overall, the naming is predictable and readable across the set.
Tool Count3/5
With 34 tools, the count is borderline high for a single server, as it aggregates multiple unrelated domains (e.g., Trello, GitHub, weather, crypto). This feels heavy and could overwhelm agents, though each tool individually serves a purpose. A more modular approach might be better suited.
Completeness4/5
For the broad multi-domain scope, coverage is reasonably complete with CRUD operations in some areas (e.g., Trello: create/update card, get boards; Notion: create/update page, query database). Minor gaps exist, such as no delete operations for Trello cards or GitHub issues, but agents can work around these with available tools.
Average 2.8/5 across 34 of 34 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers zero behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, result format, pagination, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words with no wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the essential function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (search with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context about behavior, parameters, or results, making it inadequate for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema names imply. It doesn't explain what 'query' should contain, date format for 'from_date'/'to_date', or default behaviors. With 3 parameters (1 required) and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search news articles' states the basic purpose (verb+resource) but is vague about scope and lacks differentiation from siblings. It doesn't specify what kind of search (full-text, keyword, semantic) or what sources are included, making it less specific than ideal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_top_headlines' or 'get_sources' is provided. The description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without detailing traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format is. This leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, parameter details, or return values, leaving gaps that hinder an AI agent's ability to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what 'board_id' is (e.g., a Trello board identifier, format, or how to obtain it). With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get cards on a Trello board' clearly states the action (get) and resource (cards on a Trello board), but it's vague about scope (e.g., all cards, filtered cards) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_boards' or 'update_card'. It avoids tautology by specifying the resource beyond the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a board ID), exclusions, or how it differs from related tools like 'get_boards' or 'search_pages'. The description implies usage but offers no explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any behavioral traits such as read-only vs. mutative nature, authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description is too vague to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond its 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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get market data for a coin', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a data retrieval tool with no output schema and low schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'market data' includes (e.g., price, volume, trends), how results are returned, or any limitations. With no annotations and minimal parameter info, the description fails to provide sufficient context for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'coin_id' undocumented. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'coin_id' represents (e.g., cryptocurrency symbol, name, or ID format) or providing examples. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the parameter semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get market data for a coin', which includes a verb ('Get') and resource ('market data for a coin'), making it clear what it does. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_coin_price' or 'get_trending_coins', leaving ambiguity about scope or differences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_coin_price' or 'get_trending_coins'. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, offering only a basic statement of purpose without operational direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or what the search returns (e.g., list of repos with basic details). This leaves critical usage aspects unclear.
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 with a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core function, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (search operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to address how results are structured, error conditions, or practical usage details, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'query' should contain (e.g., keywords, filters) or 'language' (e.g., programming language like 'Python'), leaving both parameters semantically undefined beyond their types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search GitHub repositories' clearly states the action (search) and target resource (GitHub repositories), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects can be searched (e.g., by name, description, topics) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'search_news' or 'search_photos' beyond the domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare to siblings like 'get_repository_info' for detailed info, or specify scenarios where searching is appropriate over other repository-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without any details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, offering no transparency beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, which is appropriate for a simple search 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?
Given the tool's complexity (search with parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects, parameter details, or return values, making it inadequate for effective agent use beyond the most basic understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain what 'query' should contain (e.g., track name, artist) or how 'limit' affects results (e.g., default value, range). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('search') and resource ('tracks on Spotify'), which is clear but basic. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_news' or 'search_photos', which follow a similar pattern, making it vague in comparison. However, it avoids tautology by not merely restating the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_track_info' for specific track details or other search tools for different resources. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving usage entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format is, or any rate limits. The description is too vague to inform the agent about behavioral 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List message history') and adds a key detail ('optionally since a date') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'message history' entails, the return format, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or errors. For a tool with no structured support, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds minimal value. It mentions 'optionally since a date' which hints at the 'from_date' parameter's purpose, but doesn't specify the date format, timezone, or any constraints, leaving the parameter poorly documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('message history'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on message history retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'get_sources' or 'search_pages' that might also retrieve messages.
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 mentions optional date filtering but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List news sources' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word earns its place by directly stating the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the parameters, return values, or behavioral aspects, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively. The conciseness comes at the cost of missing essential contextual details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters ('category' and 'country') with 0% description coverage, meaning they are undocumented in the schema. The description 'List news sources' does not mention these parameters at all, failing to add any semantic meaning beyond the schema. With low schema coverage, the description does not compensate, leaving parameters ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List news sources' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('news sources'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about what 'news sources' entails (e.g., publishers, outlets, feeds) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_news' or 'get_top_headlines', making it somewhat vague. It avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 sibling tools like 'search_news' or 'get_top_headlines', nor does it specify contexts or exclusions for usage. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection, relying solely on the tool name and basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. 'Search Unsplash photos' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be required, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what format the results take. The description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though what it communicates is insufficient. The structure is front-loaded with the essential action and resource.
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 a search tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, what authentication might be needed, or any usage constraints. For a search operation that presumably returns visual content, more context about result format and capabilities would be expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (query and per_page), the description provides no information about what these parameters mean or how they should be used. It doesn't explain what types of queries are supported, what per_page controls, or any constraints on parameter values. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search') and resource ('Unsplash photos'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling search tools like search_news, search_pages, search_places, search_repositories, or search_tracks - all of which follow the same 'Search [resource]' pattern without indicating what makes photo search unique.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this search should be preferred over get_random_photo or get_photo_details (both sibling tools), nor any context about what types of queries work best, what the tool returns, or any prerequisites for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Add tracks,' implying a mutation, but doesn't cover permissions needed, rate limits, whether duplicates are allowed, or what happens on success/failure. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Add tracks to a playlist by URIs'—front-loading the core action and method. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with inadequate context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'URIs' for tracks, adding some meaning to the 'tracks' array parameter, but doesn't explain 'playlist_id' format or source. With 2 parameters and low coverage, this partial clarification is insufficient, scoring below the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add tracks') and target resource ('to a playlist'), with the method specified ('by URIs'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_playlist' (which creates playlists) and 'search_tracks' (which finds tracks). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping tools like 'update_playlist' if that existed, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing playlist), exclusions (e.g., not for removing tracks), or compare to siblings like 'create_playlist' for initial setup. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation, implying it's a write/mutation tool, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response contains. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the essential action and resource without any wasted words. Every element earns its place, making it efficient for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It states what the tool does at a high level but lacks crucial details about behavior, parameters, and expected outcomes that would be needed for proper agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'list_id', 'name', or 'desc' mean, their formats, constraints, or examples. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters essentially undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a card in a Trello list'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update_card' or 'create_issue', which would require more specific differentiation to achieve 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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a list_id), comparison to sibling tools like 'update_card', or scenarios where this is appropriate versus other creation tools like 'create_issue' or 'create_playlist'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns issue ID). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a creation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, parameter meanings, or behavioral aspects like authentication requirements. For a mutation tool, this leaves the agent with inadequate information to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters, failing to compensate for this gap. With 4 parameters (owner, repo, title, body) and 3 required, the description adds no semantic meaning beyond what's inferred from the tool name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an issue in a repository' clearly states the action (create) and resource (issue in a repository), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_card' or 'create_page' by specifying the repository context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'update_card'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., repository access), exclusions, or related tools like 'get_repository_info' or 'list_commits' that might be used in conjunction. It's a basic statement without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a page but doesn't mention permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. It lacks details on the response format or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and context concisely.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, errors), and expected outputs, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'parent page or database' (hinting at 'parent_id') and implies 'properties' for page content, but doesn't explain what 'properties' should contain (e.g., Notion property types like title, rich text) or format requirements. This adds minimal value beyond the bare 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 resource ('a Notion page'), and specifies the location ('under a parent page or database'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_pages' or 'update_page' by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_card' or 'create_issue' in terms of platform context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a parent page/database ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'update_page' or 'query_database'. Usage is implied but not explicitly 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a playlist but does not cover critical aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a mutation with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter meanings, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not add any semantic information about 'user_id' or 'name' beyond what's implied by the tool name. It fails to explain what these parameters represent, such as format or constraints, leaving them undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new playlist for a user'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_tracks_to_playlist' or 'create_card', which would require specifying it's for music/media contexts or unique to playlist 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'create_card' or 'create_page', nor does it mention prerequisites like user authentication or context-specific scenarios. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'Get[s] current price' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness (how 'current' is defined), error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place: 'Get' (action), 'current price' (what), 'for a coin' (target), 'in a given currency' (context).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for a 2-parameter tool, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks crucial context: expected response format, error handling, data sources, currency/coin code standards, or performance characteristics. For a price lookup tool, users need to know what 'current' means and how results are structured.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'coin' and 'currency' which map to the two parameters (coin_id, vs_currency), but provides no semantic details beyond their names - no format examples (e.g., 'bitcoin' vs 'BTC'), valid values, or constraints. This adds minimal value beyond what's inferable from parameter names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get current price for a coin in a given currency' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('price') with scope ('coin', 'currency'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_market_data' or 'get_trending_coins' by focusing on a single coin's price rather than broader market data or trending lists. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_market_data' and 'get_trending_coins' that might overlap in cryptocurrency price functionality, there's no indication of when this specific coin-price tool is preferred, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get directions' but doesn't describe what the directions include (e.g., route steps, distance, duration), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or how it handles errors like invalid locations. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (routing between two points), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral details, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'origin and destination' but doesn't explain what format these parameters should be in (e.g., addresses, coordinates, place names) or any constraints. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names, failing to adequately cover the two required parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'directions', specifying the action and what it returns. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on routing rather than weather, news, or other functions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'search_places' or 'geocode_address', which might handle location data differently.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing valid addresses or coordinates, or compare it to siblings like 'geocode_address' for location processing or 'search_places' for finding points of interest. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool gets a random photo with optional filtering, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it returns metadata, image data, or URLs; rate limits; authentication needs; or what 'random' means (e.g., from a curated set or all photos).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key detail about optional filtering.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how randomness is determined, or provide enough context for a tool with a parameter, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions optional filtering by category but doesn't explain what categories are available, their format, or how filtering works. This adds minimal value beyond the bare 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 ('Get') and resource ('random photo'), with optional filtering by category. It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_photos' or 'get_photo_details'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_photos' or 'get_photo_details'. The description mentions optional filtering but doesn't explain when filtering is appropriate or what the tool is best suited for.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' implies a read operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, rate limits, what details are returned, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what details are returned, how to handle errors, or usage constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'GitHub repository details' but doesn't explain what 'owner' and 'repo' parameters represent, their expected formats, or examples. This fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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 'Get GitHub repository details' clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('GitHub repository details'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'search_repositories' which might serve a similar domain, missing explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_repositories' or other GitHub-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing specific repository access, or when this tool is preferred over searching for repositories.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic function. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a news API tool, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'top headlines' means (e.g., recency, popularity), return values, or error handling. For a 2-parameter tool with no structured documentation, this is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'by country and category' which maps to the two parameters but adds minimal semantic context—no details on valid values, formats, or examples. It doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'top headlines', with filtering by 'country and category'. It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'search_news' which might have overlapping functionality.
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 'search_news'. The description mentions filtering by country and category but doesn't specify if these are required, optional, or what the default behavior is when omitted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether authentication is required, rate limits apply, what format the details include, or if there are any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with an external API.
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 with just three words, front-loading the core purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick scanning while remaining clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, how to obtain track IDs, or any behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with inadequate context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'track_id', the description adds no semantic information about what this parameter represents, its expected format (e.g., Spotify URI, ID string), or where to obtain it. The description doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Spotify track details' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Spotify track details'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It's specific enough to distinguish this as a retrieval operation for music tracks from Spotify, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_tracks' or 'add_tracks_to_playlist'.
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. With sibling tools like 'search_tracks' available, there's no indication whether this is for retrieving specific known tracks versus searching for tracks, nor any mention of prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('list') but doesn't reveal critical traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('List recent commits for a repository'), making it immediately clear. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and target resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like authentication needs, result limitations (e.g., what 'recent' entails), or error handling. For a tool with this context, more detail is necessary to ensure reliable use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'repository' but doesn't explain the 'owner' and 'repo' parameters beyond what's implied. No details are provided on parameter formats (e.g., GitHub username vs. organization for 'owner'), making it inadequate for guiding proper 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 'List recent commits for a repository' clearly states the verb ('list') and resource ('commits for a repository'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_repositories' or 'get_repository_info' by focusing specifically on commits. However, it lacks specificity about what 'recent' means (e.g., time frame or count), preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_repositories' or 'get_repository_info', nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., needing repository access) or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Make a phone call' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, cost implications, error conditions, or what happens when the call completes. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 8 words, front-loading the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, service provider, and key technical requirement. There's zero waste or redundancy in this minimal description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what errors might occur, authentication requirements, or provide enough context for an agent to use it effectively. The extreme conciseness comes at the cost of necessary contextual information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 3 required parameters, the description provides no information about parameter meanings beyond what can be inferred from the parameter names ('to', 'from', 'twiml_url'). The description doesn't explain what format these parameters should be in, what a TwiML URL is, or any constraints on phone number formatting. This leaves the agent with insufficient guidance for proper parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Make a phone call') and the resource/method ('via Twilio with a TwiML URL'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'send_sms' which also uses Twilio for communication, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparison with the sibling 'send_sms' tool that also appears to be a Twilio communication method. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool queries a database but doesn't describe what the query returns, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes key details like the resource and optional parameter. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (querying a database with nested objects), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or provide enough context for the agent to use it effectively without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the parameters. The description mentions 'optional filter' but doesn't explain what 'database_id' is or provide details on filter structure or usage. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Query') and resource ('a Notion database'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies the optional filter parameter, which adds some detail. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'search_pages' or 'get_boards' that might also query databases, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a database ID, or compare it to other query-related tools in the sibling list. This leaves the agent with no explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, permissions). The description is too basic for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single, direct sentence that front-loads the core functionality. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (search operation with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter details, or result expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but only vaguely mentions 'query string' without explaining what constitutes a valid query, search scope, or examples. This adds little value beyond the schema's basic type information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search') and target resource ('Notion pages') with the mechanism ('by query string'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling search tools like search_news or search_repositories, which prevents 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 like query_database or create_page, nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints. It simply states what the tool does without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Send') which implies a write/mutation operation, but provides no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, cost implications, or what happens after sending (e.g., delivery status, response format).
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 just 4 words, front-loading the essential action and service provider. There's zero wasted language, though this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address authentication, error cases, response format, or parameter details that are essential for correct tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for all 3 required parameters, the description provides no information about parameter meanings, formats, or constraints. It doesn't explain what 'to' and 'from' represent (phone numbers in specific format), what 'body' contains (message text with length limits), or provide any examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Send') and resource ('SMS via Twilio'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'make_call' or specify what makes SMS distinct from other communication methods in this toolset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'make_call' or other communication methods. The description lacks context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or limitations for SMS sending.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description 'Update a Trello card' is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose in a single, clear sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 2 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and output, making it insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the parameters 'card_id' or 'updates'. It doesn't explain what 'card_id' refers to, what fields 'updates' can include, or provide any examples, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a Trello card' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('Trello card'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'update_page' or specify what aspects of a card can be updated, which prevents 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 like 'create_card' or 'update_page'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation operation ('Update') but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It front-loads the core action and resource, though it could benefit from additional context without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and nested objects in parameters, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, error handling, and output, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'page_id' and 'properties' implicitly but doesn't explain what 'properties' entails (e.g., key-value pairs for Notion page fields) or provide examples. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'a Notion page properties', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update_card', which might be conceptually similar but for a different resource type, leaving room for slight ambiguity in sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_page' or 'update_card', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing page ID. It only states what the tool does, without context for usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't reveal if this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, accuracy considerations, or what the output might look like (e.g., coordinates), which is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single, direct sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clearly stating 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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what geocoding entails (e.g., converting to coordinates), potential errors, or return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full behavior and output.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely implies the 'address' parameter without detailing format, examples, or constraints. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's basic type definition, resulting in a baseline score due to the single parameter.
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 ('geocode') and the resource ('a human-readable address'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from siblings since no other geocoding tools exist in the sibling list, but it's specific enough to stand alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or related tools like 'search_places' that might offer overlapping functionality, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't mention any traits like rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or what the output contains (e.g., temperature, conditions). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding 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?
Given the complexity of a weather tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., temperature, humidity), potential errors, or how it differs from sibling weather tools, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'location' fully documented in the schema as 'City name, e.g., London'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying the parameter's use without providing additional context like format constraints or examples beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current weather'), and specifies the input method ('by city name'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_weather_forecast' or 'get_weather_alerts', which prevents 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 like 'get_weather_forecast' or 'geocode_address' (which might handle location input differently). It lacks any context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error conditions, or what format the forecast data returns. For a weather API tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every element ('Get', '5-day/3-hour forecast', 'by city name') serves a clear purpose in minimal space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a weather forecast tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the forecast data includes (temperature, precipitation, etc.), time intervals, units, or error handling. The agent would need to guess about the return format and operational constraints.
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 description mentions 'by city name' which clarifies the 'location' parameter, and '5-day' implies the 'days' parameter default/scope. With 50% schema description coverage (only 'days' has description), the description adds some value by clarifying 'location' semantics, but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap or provide format details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('5-day/3-hour forecast by city name'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'get_current_weather', leaving some ambiguity about when to use each weather-related tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_current_weather' or 'get_weather_alerts'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases for a forecast versus current weather.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It mentions 'Google Places Text Search' which implies an external API call, but doesn't describe rate limits, authentication needs, response format, pagination, or error behavior. The description is insufficient for a tool that likely has significant behavioral characteristics.
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 - a single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses efficient phrasing. Every word earns its place in communicating the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what results to expect, how they're structured, limitations of the Google Places API, or error handling. The description provides only basic functional context without the necessary operational details.
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 50% schema description coverage (only 'location' has a description), the description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain what 'query' should contain, format examples, or constraints. The baseline is 3 since the schema covers half the parameters, but the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'query' parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search') and resource ('places via Google Places Text Search'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'geocode_address' or 'search_photos', but the specific 'Google Places Text Search' context provides reasonable distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'geocode_address' or other search tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate use cases beyond the basic function 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the One Call requirement, it doesn't describe what weather alerts include (e.g., types, severity, duration), how the location parameter should be formatted, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with external APIs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a key constraint. There's no wasted text, and every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of weather alerts (which can involve varied data like types, severity, and timing), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or handle edge cases, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with one required parameter 'location' that is undocumented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what format 'location' should be in (e.g., coordinates, city name), examples, or constraints. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('weather alerts for a location'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_current_weather' or 'get_weather_forecast', which would be needed for 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a constraint ('requires One Call support'), which provides some context for when the tool might fail or require specific conditions. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_current_weather' or 'get_weather_forecast', nor does it mention any prerequisites beyond the One Call requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'authenticated user,' hinting at auth needs, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, return format, or whether it lists all boards or filtered ones. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance. 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?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output, or usage context. For a simple list tool, this might be adequate, but it doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data, leaving room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Trello boards'), specifying they are for the authenticated user. It distinguishes from siblings like get_board_cards (which gets cards within a board) and get_repository_info (different domain). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as search_pages or list_commits, which are also list operations in other contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools like search_pages or list_commits. The context is implied (Trello boards for the user) but lacks explicit usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the response format might be (e.g., JSON with fields). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, scoring 2 for minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description 'Get photo details by ID' is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste—every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and key parameter. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, potential errors (e.g., invalid ID), or return values, which are critical for a retrieval tool. The simplicity of the tool (1 parameter) mitigates this slightly, but overall, it lacks sufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID', which clarifies that 'photo_id' is an identifier for a photo, adding meaning beyond the schema's generic string type. However, it doesn't specify ID format (e.g., numeric, UUID) or examples, so it partially compensates but not fully, aligning with the baseline 3 for moderate value addition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get photo details by ID' clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'photo details', specifying it operates on a photo identified by ID. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_photos' (which searches rather than retrieves by ID) and 'get_random_photo' (which retrieves random photos). However, it doesn't specify what 'details' include (e.g., metadata, dimensions), keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a specific photo ID to retrieve details, contrasting with 'search_photos' for broader queries and 'get_random_photo' for random selection. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if you need multiple photos) or prerequisites (e.g., valid ID format), leaving it at an implied level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't add any context about what 'trending' means, how the data is sourced, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on what 'trending' entails and the response structure, which could help the agent use it more effectively. It's complete enough for basic use but has room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it also doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none. A baseline of 4 is given as it meets the requirement for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('trending coins on CoinGecko'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_coin_price' or 'get_market_data', which are related but distinct CoinGecko operations, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.
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:

[![muti-mcps MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/TaylorChen/muti-mcps/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/TaylorChen/muti-mcps)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![muti-mcps MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/TaylorChen/muti-mcps/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/TaylorChen/muti-mcps)

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/TaylorChen/muti-mcps'

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