gta_mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of GTA Online, from business management to heists, collectibles, and map features. Even related tools like gta-business-economics, gta-business-set-state, and gta-business-status have clearly separate purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5All tools follow the uniform pattern gta-<descriptive_noun_phrase> with hyphens separating words. The naming is consistent in style and length, making it easy to infer functionality from the name.
Tool Count4/528 tools cover a wide but focused domain of GTA Online money-making. While slightly on the higher side, each tool serves a specific purpose and the set feels comprehensive without being bloated.
Completeness4/5The tool set covers major money-making aspects: methods, businesses, heists, collectibles, properties, daily tasks, and calculators. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for heist setups), but the overall surface is robust.
Average 3.9/5 across 28 of 28 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must compensate. It discloses the browser fallback dependency and graceful degradation, but omits other behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, or result format. For a tool with no output schema, more transparency is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences front-loaded with purpose, followed by a behavioral note. No redundant words; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema). The description explains input (timestamps) and a dependency, but does not clarify return format, handling of omitted platform, or error conditions. Adequate but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'platform' parameter or its enum values. Users cannot infer what each platform code means or how omitting the parameter affects results. The description fails to compensate for missing schema info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns per-platform timestamps of the last GTA Online tunables update, explicitly calling it a 'daily-reset / new-content signal'. This distinguishes it from siblings like gta-reset-times or other business tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions a browser fallback requirement and graceful degradation, giving some contextual usage hints. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gta-reset-times) or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only status, performance, output format, or side effects. The description only states the purpose without operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that directly states the purpose and includes inline examples. It is extremely concise with no wasted words, perfectly front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input (single string) and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and usage with examples. It is complete enough for an AI agent to understand what the tool does, though it could mention the output type (e.g., text or structured data).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% as the required 'method' parameter has a description ('Method id or name fragment'). The tool description adds examples but no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for full coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns 'full detail and tips for one GTA Online money-making method' and provides concrete method examples, making the specific verb-resource relationship obvious and distinguishing it from siblings like 'gta-best-methods' which lists all methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gta-best-methods for a list, gta-money-plan for planning). Usage context is only implied by the tool name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what is listed, not that it's a read-only operation or any side effects. No mention of filtering behavior beyond parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb, no fluff. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately describes what the tool returns (cost, unlocks, priority), but lacks detail on output format or sorting. Given a simple list with one optional parameter, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (parameter described in schema). Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's description of maxCost. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool lists income properties with cost, unlocks, and buy priority, distinguishing it from property-detail and mansion-info. Specific verb 'list' and resource 'GTA Online income properties' with clear output attributes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage: when you need a list of income properties with cost and priority. No explicit when-not or alternative tools mentioned, but context implies it complements property-detail and best-methods.
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 mentions 'bundled reference data' but does not disclose whether data is static, stale, or requires updates. No side effects or rate limits are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and key filters. Every word adds value; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete for a simple ranking tool. It could clarify data source freshness but is otherwise sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (75-100%), so baseline is 3. The description adds context about ranking by GTA$/hour but does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (rank), the resource (GTA Online money-making methods), and the metric (estimated GTA$/hour). It lists filtering options, distinguishing it from siblings like gta-business-status or gta-method-detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for ranking methods but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gta-method-detail for a single method). No exclusions or prerequisites are 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. It discloses that the tool builds a ranked, time-boxed action list and mixes income sources, but it does not reveal whether the tool has side effects (e.g., modifying game state), requires authentication, or has rate limits. The term 'planner' suggests read-only, but this is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words. Excellent structure for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description explains the return as a ranked, time-boxed action list. It covers inputs and data sources (bonuses, business state, reset urgency). It is mostly complete for a planning tool, though it could mention prerequisites (e.g., set business state beforehand) or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only sessionMinutes has a description). The description adds context for the goal parameter by listing enum values in prose ('balanced', 'max-cash', etc.) and explains how it combines bonuses and business state. However, the solo parameter is not explained. Overall, the description adds some meaning beyond schema but does not fully compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource ('build a ranked, time-boxed action list') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gta-best-methods and gta-daily-checklist by being 'the flagship planner'. It also specifies the inputs (session length and goal) and the output (action list mixing passive and active earners).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a session length and goal, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions or comparative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Pure computation, always available', which indicates no side effects, permissions, or rate limits. This is accurate but minimal. There is no contradiction between description and annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential information: what the tool does and its nature. Every word earns its place. No unnecessary phrasing or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple tool with no parameters and a clear purpose. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., whether it returns seconds, formatted time, or a JSON object). Given that there is no output schema, the description should provide more detail on return values to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% automatically. With no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to add.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides 'Time remaining until the GTA Online daily reset (06:00 UTC) and weekly reset (Thursday 07:00 UTC)'. It identifies the resource ('reset times') and the action ('time remaining'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, many of which are unrelated but some might also deal with time.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating 'Pure computation, always available', suggesting it is a simple, non-destructive query that can be used anytime. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus sibling tools or any exclusions. The context is clear but minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions outputs (map, locations, prices) but omits read-only nature, data freshness, error scenarios, or if any actions are performed. This lack of detail leaves ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core function but lacks details about output format, data sources, or limitations. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by definition. Description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as no additional meaning is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: providing today's street drug dealers locations and product prices on a map. It uses specific language ('street drug dealers: map + live locations and which products sell highest there') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like business economics or collectibles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when one needs street dealer info, but it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool. Among many sibling tools, no guidance on alternatives or when not to use is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully describes the returned data and notes it is a 'bundled snapshot, refreshable,' implying read-only behavior. No destructive or authorization concerns are indicated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at three sentences, front-loading the key purpose and data fields. It efficiently conveys what the tool does without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple data retrieval tool with one optional parameter, the description adequately covers the output fields and refreshable nature. While no output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description lists allowed values. The description adds value by explaining that omitting the parameter returns data for all businesses, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides 'per-business production economics' including specific data fields like sell value, capacity, multiplier, and coefficients. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on raw economics data, but does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for obtaining current business economic data, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though sibling tools suggest contrasts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions persistence and tracking of fill timers/cooldowns, which is positive. However, it doesn't explicitly state that setting 'sold' resets stock (though the schema does) or the effects of other fields. Behavioral traits are partially disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, 40 words, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main purpose and persistence behavior. However, it omits mentioning the 'remove' functionality for stopping tracking, which is a significant use case. Without an output schema, the description should be more thorough about operations, but it's largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), so the description's mention of 'resupplied just now, sold just now, stock level, upgrades' adds minimal extra meaning. It provides context but doesn't enhance semantics beyond what schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Record' and the resource 'GTA Online businesses', listing specific aspects (resupplied, sold, stock level, upgrades). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gta-business-status (read) by focusing on state recording and persistence.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after resupplying/selling but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gta-business-status for querying. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool names are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description mentions 'Today's' indicating time-sensitivity and 'bonus', but does not specify output format, API behavior, or limitations. Basic transparency but insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. No wasted words. Excellent conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and context (today's location, bonus, map). However, it could clarify the output format (e.g., text vs image) for better completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides today's Drug Vehicle location and map, including that it sells for a bonus. It distinguishes from sibling location tools by being specific to the drug vehicle.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 gta-map-locations or gta-exotic-exports. The description implies use for drug vehicle location 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.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only informational tool but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or require permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, though it could be slightly more concise by removing non-essential details like the date.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers all relevant information about what the tool returns, making it complete for an informational tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds full meaning by detailing the content returned (options, mechanics, businesses, payouts).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Full breakdown of the GTA Online Mansion (Prix Luxury Real Estate, ...)' with specific details about the content, distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover other aspects of GTA Online.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus other GTA tools, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the calculation uses a method's $/hr and produces hours/runs, which is moderately transparent. However, it does not explain whether it uses user-provided or hardcoded $/hr, or any assumptions or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys purpose, scope, and output without filler. Every word is necessary, and the key action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately defines the input-output relationship. It mentions that output includes 'hours/runs to recoup'. However, it could be more explicit about the return format or the need for a method with known $/hr, which would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that buyIn is the property cost (optional, falls back to method's buy-in) and method is an identifier. This contributes marginal value, so score is at baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: estimating how long a GTA Online property pays for itself in hours/runs based on a method's earnings rate. It uses a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('payback time for property'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gta-sell-calculator or gta-money-plan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when wanting to know payback time but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., if you want overall earnings plan, use gta-money-plan). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists the information returned (cost range, unlocks, priority) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has other behavioral traits. It is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with action and resource. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no output schema, so description should hint at return format. It lists three pieces of information but not structure. Overall adequate but lacks completeness regarding output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage (property parameter described as 'Property id or name fragment'). Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Detail' and resource 'one GTA Online property', and specifies the information it provides (cost range, what it unlocks, buy priority). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'gta-properties' which likely lists properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies use for obtaining specific property details rather than a list or other tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is still clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the operation (list/search) without detailing behavioral traits like read-only, rate limits, or side effects. Since the operation is a simple query, it's adequate but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose, provides concrete examples, and lists filtering options. No redundant information; every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's functionality adequately. It explains what it lists, gives examples, and mentions all filter options. It could be improved by noting return format or pagination, but is mostly complete for a simple listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67% with descriptions for search and moneyOnly. The description adds that these are filters, but doesn't explain group values or add significant detail beyond the schema. It meets the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists or searches GTA Online map categories, with specific examples (street dealers, gun van, etc.) and mentions over 100 categories. It differentiates from sibling tools that focus on specific categories or locations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains filtering by group, keyword, or money-only, giving clear context on how to use the parameters. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it vs. sibling tools, the broad scope implies it's the general category lookup tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must cover transparency. It discloses that daily categories show today's spawns, implying time-sensitivity, but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The behavior is adequately described but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence followed by a brief clarifying note about daily categories. Every phrase adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description hints at the return (map link and optional live panel) but lacks specifics like format or structure. For a 2-parameter tool, it is fairly complete, but could be slightly more explicit about what the map link looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining that categories are slugs/names referencing gta-map-categories and the purpose of includeLiveData, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a map link and optionally live data for GTA Online map categories, with concrete examples like street-dealers and daily spawns. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying its unique output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use (for map links and live panels by category) and notes daily categories show today's spawns. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct alternatives, though it references gta-map-categories in the parameter description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool captures a screenshot and returns the image inline, indicating a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on data freshness (always today's) or error handling for invalid categories.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by examples and output format. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter hint, and inline image return. It could be more complete by noting the screenshot is static for the current day, but it's adequate for agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing example categories and referencing 'gta-map-categories' for valid values, but does not explain the format or meaning of the category slug beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the action (capture screenshot), resource (GTA Online map), and scope (for a category showing today's marker positions). It distinguishes from siblings like gta-map-categories and gta-render-map by focusing on a visual screenshot with current data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists example categories but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like gta-map-locations (textual data) or gta-render-map (possibly raw rendering). No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only listing operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or safe, nor mention any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and gets straight to the point without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless listing tool, the description is adequate. It identifies the purpose and related tool, though it could briefly hint at the output format (e.g., list of coordinate set names).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is not required to add parameter details. The baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (bundled coordinate sets) and distinguishes it from siblings like gta-map-categories by specifying it is for the offline map renderer (gta-render-map).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (to see available coordinate sets for rendering) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide when-not-to guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses offline rendering, base map usage, and inline image return, but omits potential side effects like file size or performance constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with key info (offline, marker drawing, inline image). No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers offline rendering, coordinate ranges, and input modes. It lacks mention of output format/size and mutual exclusivity of category/points, but overall is sufficient for a rendering tool with no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 75% (3 of 4 params described). The description adds context about coordinate ranges and two input modes, but does not clarify mutual exclusivity of category and points, nor add detail for the undocumented title parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool renders a GTA Online map image offline, draws markers from bundled or custom coordinates, and returns an inline image. It distinguishes from siblings like gta-map-locations by specifying offline rendering and direct image output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use (offline map rendering) and gives coordinate ranges, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or specify prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It indicates a read-only listing operation, which is evident, but does not address potential behavioral traits like data freshness, caching, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool returns and its scope. No additional details are needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying what is returned: primary targets with payouts and secondary loot values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists Cayo Perico Heist primary targets and their payouts (normal and hard mode) and secondary loot values. The verb 'list' specifies the action, and the resource is distinct from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. However, among sibling tools, there is no other tool listing heist targets, so usage context is implicitly clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates the tool is read-only and returns a list of tasks with payouts. While no annotations exist, the behavioral expectations are clear from the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key terms, no wasted words. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameter-less tool, the description fully explains what the tool provides. Given no output schema exists, it sufficiently covers the return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With no parameters, the description adds value by specifying the output: tasks, payouts, and running total. This goes beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides the optimal daily money routine, listing every daily-reset task with payout and running total. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'gta-daily-collectibles' by focusing on money-making tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gta-daily-collectibles' or 'gta-reset-times'. Usage is implied but not clearly contextualized.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It transparently discloses caching behavior ('cached per weekly window, serves stale data with a note if fetch fails'). This covers the key behavioral trait, though it omits potential details like response size or error format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first clearly states the content, the second adds caching behavior. No extraneous information, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers what the tool returns and its caching behavior, but it does not specify the output structure or format. Given no output schema, mentioning that the response includes specific fields would improve completeness, though for a simple fetch tool it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. Since no parameters exist, the description cannot add parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is already complete. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the current week's GTA Online event from Rockstar Newswire, listing specific content like title, bonuses, podium vehicle, and discounts. This verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other aspects (e.g., businesses, collectibles).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for weekly event data but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like gta-tunables-status or gta-reset-times. No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the data is time-sensitive ('Today's'), which is important for behavioral expectations (not to use stale cached results). However, it does not mention any side effects (none expected), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The time-sensitivity disclosure is valuable, earning a 4.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential information (what the tool returns: today's list of 10 cars and a map). Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded. No wasted verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It tells the user they will get a list of 10 cars and a map, specified as today's data. It does not elaborate on the format or structure of the output, but for a tool with this low complexity, it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds value by describing the output content (list and map). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool provides 'Today's GTA Online Exotic Exports special-vehicle wanted list (the 10 cars to source for the Auto Shop) + map.' It specifies the resource (exotic exports wanted list) and scope (today's list, 10 cars). The verb is implicit but clear, and the tool is well-differentiated from siblings like gta-cayo-targets or gta-street-dealers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool or when to avoid it in favor of alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool name and description ('exotic exports'), but no explicit guidance is given. For an agent to decide between similar tools, more context would be helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('reads persisted state') with no side effects. Could add detail about absence of authentication or rate limits, but is sufficient for a simple data retrieval.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences that are direct and front-loaded with the key purpose. Every word adds value, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and its dependency on another tool. It is complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so description does not need to provide param details. It adds value by explaining dependency on gta-business-set-state and what data is returned, compensating for the lack of an output schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it shows current state of tracked GTA Online businesses and lists specific data (stock %, time-to-full, current value, sell readiness, next actions). Distinguishes from sibling gta-business-set-state which sets state, and other business tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions it reads persisted state set via gta-business-set-state, implying it should be used after setting state. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool versus alternatives like gta-business-economics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description effectively discloses the tool's read-only behavior by specifying it returns a map link and reward info. It does not mention side effects, but none are expected for a location-query tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using two sentences to convey the purpose and examples without any extraneous words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and what it returns, meeting the needs of agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers the single parameter with a description, and the tool description enhances it with concrete examples and context about the return value, adding value beyond the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves map link and reward info for GTA Online static spawn collectibles, with specific examples like gs-caches and hidden-caches, distinguishing it from sibling tools that may handle sets or daily tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for static spawn collectibles via examples, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like gta-collectible-sets or gta-daily-collectibles. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only operation ('List'), which is accurate. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It could mention that no modifications occur, but the verb 'List' is sufficient for a simple query.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with examples, no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose and provides examples, but lacks details about the output format. However, for a simple list with no parameters, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so baseline 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to add parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists GTA Online one-time collectible sets and their completion rewards, with specific examples (Signal Jammers, Playing Cards, Action Figures). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gta-collectible-locations, which focuses on individual locations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool is for listing sets and rewards, while sibling tools like gta-collectible-locations are for individual locations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor provide alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes behavior: fetches live data from gtaweb, falls back to reference table, mentions tunables freshness. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; adequately covers read-only nature and edge case.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, concise with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, data source, fallback. No output schema, but for a simple no-param tool, it is complete enough. Could mention output format briefly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters; schema coverage 100% trivially. Description does not need to add param info, but baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it returns today's daily collectible income with per-day reward table and tunables freshness, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gta-daily-checklist and gta-collectible-locations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies use for current daily income data, mentions live source and fallback, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives. Still clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: it uses live economy data, applies a high-demand bonus formula with player count and cap, and supports optional multipliers. It does not mention safety or authentication, but for a read-only calculator this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, no wasted words, and front-loads the core action ('Calculate a GTA Online business sell value'). It efficiently conveys all necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the bonus formula and live data usage. The only gap is the exact output format, but 'sell value' is sufficiently informative for a calculator tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds meaningful context: it explains how the 'players' parameter contributes to the bonus (+2.5%/player, cap 50%) and that 'bonusMultiplier' is for weekly events (2x/3x). This goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: calculating GTA Online business sell value with a specific bonus and multiplier. It uses a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('sell value'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'gta-payback-calculator' and 'gta-business-economics'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (to compute sell values with bonuses), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation (providing location/map) with no side effects mentioned. It does not explicitly state safety or non-destructiveness, but the nature of the tool makes this obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys essential information without any wordiness. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is completely sufficient. It tells the user exactly what the tool provides (location, map, items). No additional details are needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by explaining what the tool returns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides 'Today's GTA Online Gun Van location + map' and specifies the contents (daily discounted weapons, armor, MkII ammo). The verb 'provides' and resource 'Gun Van location + map' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like gta-drug-vehicle or gta-exotic-exports.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Today's' implies daily freshness, guiding use for current-day info. However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given. For a simple info tool, this is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Zfinix/gta_online'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server