vs-code-mcp-server
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, such as file operations versus process management. However, execute_shell_command_code and execute_streaming_command_code are similar, and several file editing tools (replace_lines, insert_lines, find_and_replace) could be confused despite their specific descriptions.
Naming Consistency3/5The majority of tools follow a verb_noun_code pattern (e.g., list_files_code, read_file_code). However, a few tools omit the '_code' suffix (analyze_project, get_project_stats, find_dependencies), creating inconsistency in the naming convention.
Tool Count2/5With 29 tools, the server pushes beyond the typical upper bound for a well-scoped toolset. The breadth of file, code analysis, and system operations justifies a large surface, but the count feels excessive and could overwhelm agents.
Completeness4/5The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for file operations (create, read, update, delete, search) and code analysis (symbols, diagnostics, project insights). Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool to inspect file metadata or manage editor tabs, but these are not critical for the domain.
Average 3.2/5 across 29 of 29 tools scored. Lowest: 2.5/5.
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.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, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only status, side effects, depth of analysis, limitations, or return format. This leaves the agent without critical context for a potentially expensive or wide-ranging analysis operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it is under-specified, using vague terms like 'insights' and 'structure'. It is appropriately front-loaded but does not earn its place with substantive information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining return values, scope, and limitations. It fails to do so, leaving the agent without essential context for evaluating the tool's output or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to since the schema already documents each parameter clearly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Analyze') and resource ('project structure'), but 'provide insights about the codebase' is vague and does not specify what insights are produced. It does not differentiate from siblings like get_project_stats or find_dependencies, so it lacks the specificity needed for a clear purpose.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools are given, so the agent must guess whether this is appropriate for a given task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it recursively scans directories, how long it may take, or what output format to expect. It only states a generic purpose without revealing any behavioral traits beyond 'get statistics.'
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the tool, and every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the overlapping sibling tools and the lack of an output schema, the description is too sparse to be contextually complete. It does not clarify what constitutes 'detailed statistics,' how the two parameters affect the output, or how this tool differs from analyze_project. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke this 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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (directory, includeTests) are fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics or syntax details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get detailed statistics about the project codebase' identifies a clear action (get) and resource (project codebase), but 'statistics' is vague and could overlap with sibling tools like analyze_project or find_dependencies. It does not specify what kind of statistics (e.g., line counts, file counts, complexity) are provided.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (analyze_project, find_dependencies, search_symbols_code). The description implies usage for obtaining statistics but does not state exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent without clear decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the action. It fails to disclose important behavioral details such as what happens if the directory already exists, whether parent directories are created by default, or any side effects like permission implications. The recursive parameter is documented in the schema, but the description does not contextualize it.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. While it lacks depth, it is appropriately sized for the simple tool purpose and is not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple directory-creation tool, the description plus schema provides the minimum viable information to invoke it. However, it lacks context about typical usage, error behavior, and the practical effect of the recursive default. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, including the default value for 'recursive'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 a specific action ('Create') and resource ('a new directory'), making the tool's core purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_file_code, but the resource type is enough to imply distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_file_code. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions overwriting but fails to clarify the conditional behavior of the overwrite and ignoreIfExists parameters, leaving ambiguity about what happens when a file exists and both flags are false. This is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording or filler. It efficiently communicates the core function and earns its place without extra fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the schema covering parameters, the description lacks critical behavioral context such as the interaction between overwrite and ignoreIfExists, error handling, and return values. With no annotations and conditional logic, the description is too incomplete for an agent to use reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning. Per the rubric, the baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a new file or overwrites an existing one, using specific verbs and a clear resource. It distinguishes from read/delete/copy siblings by mentioning overwriting, but it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 append_to_file_code or replace_lines_code. It simply states the action without offering selection criteria, exclusions, or context, resulting in no usable direction for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'execute shell commands' but does not disclose behavior such as whether output is captured, whether it blocks, how exit codes are handled, or any side effects. The integrated terminal context is mentioned but not explained.
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 one concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action. However, it is overly sparse for a tool with no annotations or output schema, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters, but the description only states the basic action. It fails to explain return values, timeout behavior, working directory implications, or how it relates to streaming commands. This is inadequate for effective agent use.
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 schema already documents all three parameters (command, cwd, timeout). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline of 3.
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 executes shell commands in the VS Code integrated terminal. It uses a specific verb and resource, which is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'execute_streaming_command_code' or 'run_script_code', so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 is no mention of comparative use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'streaming output' without explaining how output is delivered, whether the command runs asynchronously, error handling, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a shell execution tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It avoids unnecessary words, but its extreme brevity leaves out important behavioral details, though that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (shell execution with streaming output) and the lack of an output schema, the description offers almost no guidance on return values, streaming semantics, or how it differs from the non-streaming sibling. This is a significant completeness gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (command, cwd, timeout), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does not need to compensate for missing schema information.
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 action (execute) and resource (shell commands), and the addition of 'streaming output' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like execute_shell_command_code. However, the distinction is implicit and not explicitly contrasted with alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 execute_shell_command_code or run_script_code. It does not mention typical scenarios, exclusions, or why streaming output would be preferred.
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 responsibility. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what files it inspects, whether it executes commands (e.g., package managers), or the nature of its output. This is insufficient for an agent to assess safety and 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. However, its brevity comes at the cost of important context, which is penalized in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what 'dependencies' means, the expected return format, and any limitations. It provides none of this. An agent cannot infer what 'analyze' produces or how to interpret results, making the tool underspecified for safe autonomous use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of the single parameter (directory) with a description 'The project directory to analyze'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find and analyze project dependencies' clearly identifies the tool's action (find/analyze) and resource (project dependencies). It distinguishes from code manipulation tools but is somewhat vague about what 'analyze' entails, and does not differentiate from sibling analysis tools like analyze_project or get_project_stats.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like analyze_project and get_project_stats, the description does not explain the specific scenarios for find_dependencies, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'integrated linters' and does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether it scans the entire workspace by default, or any performance implications. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation fallback.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the core meaning, 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.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a relatively involved parameter set, the description is too sparse. It does not mention the return format, default workspace behavior, or any limitations, leaving the agent with incomplete context to invoke the tool appropriately.
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% and each parameter has a clear description (path, format, severities, includeSource). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the general concept of warnings and errors, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Analyzes'), identifies the resource ('code'), and specifies the method ('using integrated linters'). It clearly communicates the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from file-manipulation and project-analysis siblings, though it could be more precise by explicitly stating it returns diagnostics.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., analyze_project). The description only states what the tool does, leaving the decision to the agent without any contextual cues or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'appropriate interpreter' but does not state that this executes arbitrary code, how output/errors are returned, whether the timeout is enforced, or any side effects. For a script execution tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action, but it may be too brief to convey essential usage details. It earns a 4 because it is efficient though not fully informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex tool (script execution with 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain interpreter resolution, working directory behavior, output format, error handling, or how it differs from execute_shell_command_code. The description leaves too much for the agent to discover at runtime.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description doesn't add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the meaning of 'scriptPath' relative to cwd or how arguments are passed. Since the schema is already sufficient, score stays at baseline.
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 specifies a clear action ('Run a script file') and resource, and the phrase 'with the appropriate interpreter' hints at automatic interpreter selection, which differentiates it from sibling tools like execute_shell_command_code. However, it lacks explicit mention of the script's extension/shebang handling or how it differs from running shell commands, so it is not fully distinct.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as execute_shell_command_code or execute_streaming_command_code. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context hints are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic search function and does not mention recursion depth, file type filtering, result ordering, case handling, or performance implications. The schema params (e.g., caseSensitive, maxResults) hint at behavior but are not described in the tool description itself.
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 with zero redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. While it is terse, appropriate conciseness is achieved; no word is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for a new agent to fully understand invocation context. It fails to mention return format, search behavior (e.g., regex support, recursion), or how this tool relates to other file operations. The schema helps with parameter basics but does not compensate for the lack of behavioral and usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and all five parameters have clear descriptions (pattern, directory, maxResults, filePattern, caseSensitive). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No parameter is undocumented or unclear.
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 identifies the action ('Search') and resource ('text patterns in files within a directory'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's purpose. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like search_symbols_code or find_and_replace_code, which could also be interpreted as searching for text patterns. A more specific mention of content search with regex/glob support would elevate the score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 is no mention of exclusive use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools such as search_symbols_code or list_files_code clearly have distinct purposes, but the description fails to indicate why one would choose this tool over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that replacement requires an exact originalCode match and that the file must already exist. However, it omits permissions, side effects, failure modes, and return behavior, leaving important 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose efficiently, though for a 5-parameter mutation tool it may be slightly under-specified. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool has 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only a one-line purpose. It lacks usage context, behavioral details, and outcome expectations, making it insufficient for an agent to use confidently in a complex editing scenario.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little context by highlighting 'exact content validation' for originalCode and 'specific lines' for the line range, but it does not expand on syntax, formatting, or edge cases 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Replace specific lines in existing files.' The phrase 'exact content validation' adds a distinguishing feature. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like find_and_replace_code or insert_lines_code.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as insert_lines_code, delete_lines_code, or find_and_replace_code. The intended use case is implied but not stated, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 fails to mention overwrite semantics (as controlled by the 'overwrite' parameter), whether directories are copied recursively, permissions requirements, or error handling. The single sentence only restates the basic operation without detailing side effects 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, clear sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action 'copy' and specifies the key object types. This is an appropriately sized and efficiently structured description, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits critical operational details such as directory recursion behavior, the consequence of overwrite=false when the destination exists, and whether the operation preserves metadata. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds the useful context that the tool can copy 'a file or directory', which clarifies the source and destination types. However, it does not elaborate on overwrite behavior beyond what the schema already states, so the marginal added value is modest.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'copy' with a clear resource 'file or directory' and destination 'another location'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool move_file_code, which relocates rather than duplicates. This unambiguously conveys the core operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 move_file_code. It does not mention exclusions or conditions such as copying vs. moving, when overwrite is appropriate, or whether it works across file systems. Users must infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning that deletion is permanent, how recursive deletion works, permissions needed, or failure behavior for non-empty directories. This is a significant gap for a destructive 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 a single, concise sentence with no fluff. Every word is necessary, and it directly communicates the tool's function. This is appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate with richer context. It fails to explain recursion implications, whether the operation is reversible, or how errors are returned. For a destructive tool, this level of detail is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke it without additional assumptions.
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%, with both 'path' and 'recursive' having descriptive docstrings. The tool description 'Delete a file or directory' adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so it meets the baseline but does not enrich parameter understanding.
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 'Delete' and the resource 'a file or directory', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools such as delete_lines_code (which deletes lines within a file) and create_file_code.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as delete_lines_code for line-level removal or move_file_code for relocation. There are no exclusions, preconditions, or explicit use-case 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation without detailing consequences like irreversibility, error handling for out-of-range line numbers, or whether the file is modified in place. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core operation, though it lacks supplementary guidance that would be covered elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is sparse. It confirms the operation but omits important contextual details such as prerequisites, edge cases (e.g., startLine > endLine), and behavioral expectations. For a mutation tool, this is incomplete but still minimally functional due to the clear 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?
The input schema already documents all three parameters (path, startLine, endLine) with clear descriptions, including 1-based inclusive line numbering. The description 'Delete specific lines' adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete specific lines from a file' uses a specific verb (delete) and identifies the exact resource (specific lines in a file). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like delete_file_code (whole file) and replace_lines_code (line replacement), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_file_code for removing entire files or replace_lines_code for modifying line content. No context, exclusions, or alternative references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, does not describe the return format (e.g., PID, command name), or mention any potential side effects or permission requirements. It only hints at filtering, which is insufficient for transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. Every word is informative, with no redundant or irrelevant content. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple, it has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the return value contains (e.g., process names, PIDs). It also lacks context about when this tool is useful (e.g., before killing a process). The description is minimal and leaves the agent without essential information for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (filter and maxResults), with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only broadly mentioning 'filtering options'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists running processes and mentions filtering options, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_files_code (files) and kill_process_code (process management). The verb 'list' and resource 'running processes' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kill_process_code or get_system_info_code. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool might be more appropriate, leaving usage context entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the core operation without explaining whether the file is created if missing, how newlines are handled, or what errors might occur. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that states the essential operation without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the simple functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the core function and parameters are well-documented. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits important operational context such as file existence behavior, newline handling, and return value, leaving it merely adequate.
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% (both path and content have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already clearly documents the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Append content') and the resource ('file'), with the location ('end of a file') explicitly mentioned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like prepend_to_file_code and insert_lines_code.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when append is preferred over insert, replace, or prepend, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by mentioning 'using hover data' and listing the output components (type, docs, source), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose error behavior, dependency on hover data availability, or any side effects, leaving some transparency gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining what the tool does, 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.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core function and output content (type, docs, source). It could be more complete with error handling or prerequisite notes, but for a read-only hover-data tool, it covers the essentials.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all three parameters (path, line, symbol) with descriptive text, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond this, aside from implying that 'line' and 'symbol' reference locations for the hover data. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.
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 gets definition information for a symbol, specifying the source (hover data) and the content (type, docs, source). This sufficiently differentiates it from sibling tools like search_symbols_code or get_document_symbols_code, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. A specific verb and resource are present, making the purpose clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 implies usage when a symbol and line number are known, but there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or distinctions from sibling tools like search_symbols_code or get_document_symbols_code. The description lacks 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 the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, prerequisites, edge cases (e.g., out-of-bounds line numbers), or return behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks critical contextual information such as file existence requirements, behavior on invalid line numbers, and whether changes are reversible. It is not complete enough for an agent to use safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating the general purpose, so it meets the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Insert' and identifies the resource 'new lines' in a 'file' at a 'specific position'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like replace_lines_code, append_to_file_code, and prepend_to_file_code.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when inserting lines at a specific position, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like append_to_file_code or replace_lines_code. It provides no exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only adds 'use with caution,' which is a vague warning. It does not mention that the tool sends a signal (even though signal has a default), that excludeOwn defaults to true, or that processes are irreversibly terminated. This is insufficient for a destructive 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and appends a necessary caution. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 destructive behavior, the description is too sparse. It fails to warn about the potential scope of killing multiple processes, the default signal behavior, or the excludeOwn safety mechanism. The one-word caution does not make the description complete enough for an agent to safely select and invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (signal, pattern, excludeOwn). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating 'matching a pattern,' which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Kill all processes matching a pattern' clearly states a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'kill_process_code' by emphasizing 'all processes' vs. a single one. It is immediately apparent what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for pattern-based batch termination but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like kill_process_code or list_processes_code. The cautionary note 'use with caution' hints at discretion but offers no concrete guidance or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action and does not disclose important behaviors such as whether overwriting is allowed, whether directories are moved recursively, or what happens if the source does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that communicates the core purpose effectively without unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete for a mutation tool. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or edge-case behavior (e.g., moving across filesystems, overwriting).
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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Move or rename') and clearly identifies the resource ('a file or directory'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like copy_file_code and delete_file_code.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for moving or renaming, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of copy_file_code (e.g., 'use this to move, copy_file_code to duplicate') or any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only notes regex support. It implies an in-place file mutation yet does not describe permissions, failure behavior when no match occurs, whether changes are reversible, or the return value.
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, front-loaded sentence conveys the core purpose and regex capability with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding.
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?
While the parameter schema is complete and the description identifies the tool's purpose, there is no output schema or annotation, and the description omits behavior on no-match, error handling, and whether the operation is destructive beyond normal replacement. It is minimally sufficient for selection and basic invocation but lacks edge-case context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameter meanings are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no semantic detail beyond confirming regex support (already present in the isRegex property), so baseline 3 applies.
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 uses clear verb 'Find and replace' with resource 'in a file', and highlights 'regex support', distinguishing it from sibling tools like replace_lines_code which operate on line numbers. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 such as replace_lines_code or search_files_code. The phrase 'find and replace text patterns' implies a general text-rewriting use case, but 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic kill operation without mentioning the signal mechanism, default SIGTERM, potential side effects, or prerequisites. The description adds little beyond what the name already conveys.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the action and selection method. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no output schema, but the description is minimal and does not mention behavioral nuances like default signal behavior or error handling. It lacks a note about when to use this versus kill_all_processes, making it slightly undercomplete for agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description need not explain each parameter. It does reinforce the dual selection methods (PID or name) but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as signal behavior or parameter priority. 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 'Kill a process by PID or name' clearly states the tool's action (kill) and resource (process), with a specific selection method. It implicitly distinguishes this from kill_all_processes by specifying a single process, and the singular phrasing makes the scope apparent.
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 need to terminate a specific process identified by PID or name. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor does it mention the sibling tool kill_all_processes for killing all processes, leaving the usage context under-specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states the basic listing action and does not disclose output format, hidden-file behavior, error handling, or whether it returns absolute/relative paths. This is minimal disclosure beyond the verb 'List'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, resource, and option. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with two parameters, the description gives the core operation but omits details on return values, edge cases (e.g., nonexistent path), or limitations. Without annotations or an output schema, more context would improve completeness, but it is minimally viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes both parameters (path and recursive) with clear descriptions. The description's phrases 'in a specified path' and 'optional recursive listing' essentially restate the schema, adding no new semantic detail. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the exact action ('List') and resource ('files and directories') with an explicit scope ('in a specified path'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like read_file_code (reading content) and search_files_code (searching for files), and mentions the optional recursive flag, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing directory contents but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like search_files_code. It does not state when not to use it or mention any exclusion criteria. Usage is inferred from the description, not instructed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It simply restates the operation without addressing side effects (e.g., file creation behavior, in-place modification, error conditions). For a mutating tool, this is insufficient, scoring 2.
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 focused sentence with no redundancy, fully front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the core operation but omits edge-case behavior such as missing-file handling or return values. It is adequate but not thorough, scoring 3.
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%, with clear descriptions for both path and content. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('prepend') and resource ('file'), making the action unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like append_to_file_code and insert_lines_code by specifying 'beginning of a file'.
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 over alternatives. The word 'prepend' implies use when content must be added at the start, but no exclusions or comparisons to append/insert are provided. This is implied usage, meeting the baseline for a 3.
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional encoding and line range, but does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or impacts of parameters like maxCharacters. The description is minimal and lacks safety or side-effect 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?
A single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Read the contents of a file') and then lists the main optional modifiers. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with a clear read-only purpose, but lacks annotations and an output schema. The description does not explicitly state what is returned (e.g., file content as a string) or how errors are handled, leaving some gaps. However, the schema covers parameter constraints well enough to keep this at a minimum viable level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does add brief context by summarizing 'optional encoding and line range', which aligns with startLine/endLine and encoding params. However, it adds no extra semantics beyond the schema's detailed parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Read the contents of a file' with specific optional capabilities ('optional encoding and line range'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_file_code, delete_file_code, and search_files_code.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for reading file contents and mentions optional encoding/line range, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. No alternatives are named, so guidance is limited to inferred 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?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but does not explicitly state safety, potential cost, or whether it executes external commands. It adds useful detail about the included data categories but misses important behavioral context for a system information 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 a single, direct sentence that immediately states the purpose and enumerates key contents. It is appropriately sized and wastes no 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool returns. It does not discuss limitations (e.g., operating system specifics or command execution details), but for its low complexity, it is reasonably 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 tool has 0 parameters, which earns a baseline of 4. The description further clarifies what the returned information will cover (OS, CPU, memory, disk usage), providing useful semantic context 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('system information'), enumerating OS, CPU, memory, and disk usage. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_stats or list_processes_code, which target different data.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that it is appropriate for system-level diagnostics or that other tools like list_processes_code are better for process-specific details. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states the tool performs a check, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify what constitutes 'available' (e.g., PATH lookup), the return format, or behavior when the command is missing. This is basic but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-formed sentence. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy, fluff, or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not mention the return value or exit code behavior (e.g., boolean true vs. non-zero exit), nor how availability is determined. Given no output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness, but the tool's simplicity lowers the demand.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with 'The command to check' for the single parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond reinforcing that the parameter is the command whose availability is being checked. Baseline 3 applies due to full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Check if a command is available on the system' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like execute_shell_command_code that actually run commands. The scope is explicit and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied: use this to verify command availability before execution. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., running 'which' via a shell command), nor any when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the fuzzy matching behavior, which is valuable, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe the return format, or mention any potential side effects. Since 'search' implies a non-destructive operation, the description is not misleading, but it leaves important behavioral details unstated.
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 core purpose ('Search for symbols'), specifies the resource types, adds scope ('across workspace'), and includes the key behavioral detail ('fuzzy matching'). There is no redundancy or wasted words, making it highly concise and readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral context. It explains the input and matching, but does not describe the output format or how results are returned. Given the existence of sibling tools like search_files_code and get_document_symbols_code, it would be helpful to explicitly differentiate or provide guidance, but the description covers the core functionality adequately.
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%: both 'query' and 'maxResults' have descriptive comments in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. The 'fuzzy matching' note relates to the tool's behavior rather than to the parameters themselves, so the schema adequately carries the parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for symbols (functions, classes, variables) across workspace'. It uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource ('symbols'), and adds scope ('across workspace'). The mention of 'fuzzy matching' further distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_files_code (which searches file contents) and get_symbol_definition_code (which retrieves definitions).
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 this tool: to search for symbol names workspace-wide with fuzzy matching. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, such as noting that search_files_code should be used for content searches or get_symbol_definition_code for exact definitions. The context is clear enough to infer common use cases, but it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It communicates the operation is a read ('gets') and specifies the output includes hierarchical structure and line numbers. However, it does not mention potential limitations (e.g., supported file types, large file behavior, or whether it parses only certain languages), which is a modest gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes meaningful detail. Every word adds value and there is 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?
For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete mental model of what the tool returns: a complete outline with hierarchy and line numbers. It could be slightly more explicit about file type support or error conditions, but it is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the schema fully documents 'path' and 'maxDepth'. Therefore, the description does not need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Gets complete symbol outline for a file showing hierarchical structure and line numbers'. This uses a specific verb ('gets') and resource ('symbol outline'), and the added details about hierarchical structure and line numbers distinguish it from sibling tools like search_symbols_code (searching) and get_symbol_definition_code (single symbol).
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 clearly implies usage: when you need a full symbol outline of a file with hierarchy and line numbers. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to differentiate from search/definition tools.
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/aditya-613/vscode-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server