Prefect MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific resources and actions in the Prefect domain, such as flows, deployments, flow runs, task runs, variables, work queues, blocks, and workspaces. There is no ambiguity or overlap; for example, get_flow_runs and get_task_runs are clearly separated by resource type, and create/update/delete operations are consistently differentiated.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, with verbs like get, create, update, delete, pause, resume, set, and cancel paired with specific nouns. All names use snake_case uniformly, and patterns like get_X and get_Xs for list operations are predictable, making the set easy to navigate.
Tool Count3/5
With 46 tools, the count is high and may feel heavy for typical MCP server purposes, though it aligns with Prefect's comprehensive API coverage. While each tool serves a distinct function, the sheer number could overwhelm agents, placing it in the borderline range where 16-25 tools is considered heavy, and 46 exceeds that significantly.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete CRUD/lifecycle coverage for all core Prefect resources, including flows, deployments, flow runs, task runs, variables, work queues, blocks, and workspaces. It supports operations like creation, retrieval, updating, deletion, state management, scheduling, and health checks, with no obvious gaps that would hinder agent workflows.
Average 3/5 across 46 of 46 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it updates a variable and returns details. It lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on invalid inputs, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the Args section could be more integrated into the narrative flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic parameter semantics but misses behavioral context, error handling, and output details, making it insufficient for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters (name, value, tags) and their purposes, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain constraints (e.g., name format, tag structure) or that 'value' and 'tags' are optional with null defaults, leaving gaps in understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Update a variable' which clearly indicates the action and resource, but it's generic and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_variable' or 'delete_variable'. It specifies what it does but lacks differentiation from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_variable' or 'delete_variable'. The description only states what it does without context for selection among siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation which implies read-only, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the variable doesn't exist. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with clear sections for Args and Returns. The main purpose is stated upfront, and the structured format helps readability. However, the 'Returns' section is vague ('Variable details') which slightly reduces effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Variable details' includes, error handling, authentication needs, or how this differs from the sibling 'get_variables' tool. The minimal information provided is insufficient for confident tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only states 'name: The variable name' which adds minimal semantic value beyond what's obvious from the parameter name. It doesn't explain naming conventions, format requirements, case sensitivity, or provide examples of valid variable names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'variable by name', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_variables' (plural) by specifying retrieval of a single variable. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other get_* tools that also retrieve specific resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'get_variable' versus 'get_variables' (which presumably lists multiple variables), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing to know the exact variable name versus searching. No exclusions or context for usage is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly confirm it's safe/non-destructive. It also doesn't describe error conditions (e.g., what happens if the handle doesn't exist), rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args/Returns sections are structured but could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, though the 'Returns' line is vague without an output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read operation with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter semantics, return format, error handling, and sibling differentiation. While simple tools need less documentation, this leaves too many gaps for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the two parameters but provides no additional semantic context beyond their names. It doesn't explain what an 'account_handle' or 'workspace_handle' is, their format, or how they relate to each other, leaving parameters largely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('workspace by its handle'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_workspace' (which presumably retrieves a workspace by ID rather than handle), missing an opportunity for full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_workspace' or 'get_workspaces'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites or context for when this specific lookup method is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a return value ('Confirmation message') but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if cancellation is reversible), error conditions, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by structured sections for args and returns. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are somewhat redundant with the schema and could be more integrated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses critical details like behavioral traits, error handling, and differentiation from siblings, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds minimal context by specifying 'flow_run_id' as a UUID. However, it doesn't explain format, validation, or where to obtain it, leaving significant gaps. With one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of detail reduces this to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cancel') and resource ('a flow run'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_flow_run' or 'restart_flow_run', leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_flow_run' or 'restart_flow_run', which are listed as siblings. The description only states what it does without context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a flow run, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required, whether it's idempotent (despite the parameter), error conditions, or what 'Details of the created flow run' entails. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and is relatively concise. However, the first sentence is redundant with the tool name, and the parameter explanations are minimal without adding much value beyond naming. It could be more front-loaded with critical usage information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a write operation with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value format, error handling, or behavioral nuances like idempotency. For a tool that creates resources, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well by listing all 5 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Optional parameters to pass to the flow run'). It clarifies that 'deployment_id' is a UUID and others are optional, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats or constraints (e.g., what 'parameters' should contain), preventing a perfect score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a flow run from a deployment.' This is a specific verb ('create') + resource ('flow run') + source ('from a deployment'), which is clear and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'restart_flow_run' or 'set_flow_run_state,' which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing deployment), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'restart_flow_run' or 'set_flow_run_state.' This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects on related resources, or returns detailed error messages. The mention of a 'Confirmation message' return is minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args/Returns sections are structured but could be more integrated. No unnecessary information is included, though it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the destructive nature (implied by 'Delete'), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover error cases, side effects, permissions, or detailed return values beyond a generic confirmation. For a deletion tool with significant behavioral implications, this leaves too many contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that 'deployment_id' is a 'UUID', which provides format context beyond the schema's generic string type. However, it doesn't explain where to find this ID or validate it, leaving gaps. With one parameter and some added semantics, this meets the baseline for minimal compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a deployment by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_flow' or 'delete_flow_run' by specifying the deployment resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'cancel_flow_run' which might also terminate deployments indirectly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description specifies deleting by ID, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the deployment must be stopped first), consequences (e.g., what happens to associated flow runs), or when to choose this over similar tools like 'delete_flow' or 'cancel_flow_run'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or rate limits. The confirmation message return is mentioned but not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three short sentences that are front-loaded: the core action first, then parameter and return details. No wasted words, though the structure with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' headings is slightly verbose for such simple content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context: irreversible nature, permissions, error conditions, and what the confirmation message contains. Sibling tools suggest this is part of a workflow system where deletion implications matter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema: it specifies that flow_run_id is a 'UUID' (helpful for format), but with 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, this provides only basic compensation. It doesn't explain where to find the UUID or validate format expectations beyond 'string' type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'flow run', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling deletion tools like delete_flow, delete_deployment, or delete_work_queue, which would require specifying what distinguishes a flow run from those other entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like cancel_flow_run or restart_flow_run that might be relevant alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or conditions for deletion (e.g., only for completed runs).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting dependent flows). It also omits error handling (e.g., what happens if the variable doesn't exist) and response details beyond a generic 'confirmation message', leaving significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args/Returns sections are structured but somewhat redundant with the schema. There's no wasted text, though it could be more integrated (e.g., merging the first sentence with parameter details) for optimal flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as safety warnings, error conditions, and detailed return values. For a deletion tool in a workflow system with many sibling tools, more guidance on dependencies and impact is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal semantics by stating 'name: The variable name', which clarifies the parameter's purpose but provides no details on format, constraints, or examples (e.g., case sensitivity, allowed characters). This is adequate for a single parameter but doesn't fully address the coverage gap, earning a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a variable by name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_variable' and 'update_variable' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_flow', 'delete_work_queue'), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., variable must exist), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or relationships to sibling tools like 'get_variable' for verification or 'create_variable' for recreation. This lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral details. It mentions deletion but doesn't disclose if this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, affects associated resources, or has rate limits. The confirmation message return is noted, but no further context on behavior is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured but slightly verbose; every sentence adds value, though it could be more streamlined without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral implications, error handling, and usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by specifying 'work_queue_id' as a UUID, which clarifies the parameter type beyond the schema's 'string' type. However, it doesn't explain format constraints or provide examples, leaving some gaps in understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a work queue by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'pause_work_queue' or 'resume_work_queue' by indicating permanent removal, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives like 'update_work_queue'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., ensure the queue is empty or paused), exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like 'delete_flow' or 'delete_deployment' for context-specific decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling (e.g., if slug doesn't exist), authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. 'Get' implies a read operation, but this isn't explicitly confirmed, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first ('Get a block type by slug'), followed by brief sections for args and returns. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be more integrated (e.g., combining purpose and parameters).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (beyond 'Block type details'), error conditions, or behavioral context. For a retrieval tool with minimal structured data, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It defines 'slug' as 'The block type slug', which slightly clarifies the parameter's role, but with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is insufficient to fully compensate. The baseline is 3 due to low parameter count, but the description doesn't enrich semantics significantly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a block type by slug' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('block type'), with the parameter 'slug' providing additional context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_block_types' (plural) by focusing on a single item retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for retrieving a specific block type (vs. 'get_block_types' for listing), it doesn't explicitly state this distinction, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from naming alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns 'Details of the current workspace' but doesn't specify what those details include, whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, or how 'current' is determined. This leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the 'Returns:' section could be integrated more smoothly. No wasted words, but minimal elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0 parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness by stating what the tool does and what it returns. However, for a tool with siblings that fetch workspace data in different ways, more context about what makes this tool unique would be valuable. The lack of annotations means the description should do more to explain behavioral aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It adds value by mentioning the return type ('Details of the current workspace'), which is helpful given the lack of output schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get the current workspace', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_workspace', 'get_workspace_by_handle', or 'get_workspaces', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. While it mentions 'current workspace', it doesn't clarify if this refers to the authenticated user's default workspace, the most recently accessed workspace, or another context. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'Deployment details' includes (e.g., structure, fields). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated clearly in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but could be more integrated; overall, it's efficient with little waste, though minor improvements in flow are possible.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Deployment details' returns, potential errors, or usage context relative to siblings. For a tool in a server with many related tools, more guidance is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema. It specifies that 'deployment_id' is a 'UUID', which clarifies the format beyond the schema's generic 'string' type, but with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is a modest improvement. The baseline for high schema coverage would be 3, but here the description compensates slightly for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('a specific deployment by ID'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_deployments' (plural) or 'get_flow_run', which might retrieve similar deployment-related data in different contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_deployments' for listing deployments or 'get_flow_run' for deployment-related runs, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get a deployment's schedule') and mentions returns 'Schedule details', but doesn't describe permissions needed, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the deployment doesn't exist. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's function, documenting the parameter, and mentioning the return. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections provide clear structure, though the return description could be more specific.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but lacks crucial context about authentication requirements, error handling, return format details, and how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool in this environment, more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the single parameter 'deployment_id' and specifies it's a 'UUID', which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic 'string' type. However, it doesn't explain where to find this UUID or provide format examples, leaving some gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a deployment's schedule'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_deployment' or 'set_deployment_schedule', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_deployment', 'get_deployments', and 'set_deployment_schedule', there's no indication of when this specific schedule retrieval is appropriate versus getting general deployment information or modifying schedules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'Flow details' includes (e.g., structure, fields). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to fully inform the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by brief sections for Args and Returns. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter info into the main description for better flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks usage guidelines, detailed behavioral context, and output specifics. For a simple read tool, this is minimally adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that 'flow_id' is 'The flow UUID,' providing basic semantics beyond the schema's 'Flow Id' title. However, it doesn't elaborate on format, validation, or examples. With one parameter and minimal extra info, this meets the baseline for low coverage but doesn't fully address the gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get details of a specific flow by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get details') and resource ('a specific flow'), which is clear and direct. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_flows' (which likely lists multiple flows) or 'get_flow_run' (which targets flow runs rather than flows), missing full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_flows' for listing flows or 'get_flow_run' for flow runs, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'Health status information,' but doesn't specify what that entails (e.g., uptime, metrics, error details), whether it's a read-only operation, or any potential side effects. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with two sentences, but the second sentence ('Returns: Health status information') is redundant and adds little value beyond the first. It could be more efficiently structured by combining or omitting the return statement, though it's not overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks details on what 'health status' includes, how to interpret results, or any error handling, which could be important for effective use in a server monitoring context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it avoids redundancy while clearly indicating no inputs are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get health status of the Prefect server.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('health status'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings beyond the obvious health focus, as no other tools appear to serve this diagnostic function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or context for checking server health, nor does it reference any sibling tools that might overlap or be preferred in certain scenarios. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't describe what 'details' include (e.g., status, timestamps, outputs), whether it's a read-only operation, error handling for invalid IDs, or any rate limits. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first in a clear sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections add structure without redundancy. However, the 'Returns' line is vague ('Task run details'), slightly reducing efficiency, but overall it's concise with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value format, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_task_runs'. For a retrieval tool in a context with many similar tools, more contextual guidance is needed to ensure proper agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It specifies that 'task_run_id' is a UUID, which clarifies the parameter type beyond the schema's 'string' type, but schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't explain format constraints or provide examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, it partially compensates but remains basic.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get details of a specific task run by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get details') and resource ('task run'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_task_runs' (plural) which likely lists multiple task runs. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_task_runs_by_flow_run' or other getters, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_task_runs' (for listing) or 'get_task_runs_by_flow_run' (for filtering), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a valid task run ID. Usage is implied by the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't mention whether it's a read-only operation, what permissions are required, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It avoids redundancy, though the 'Returns' line is vague ('Work queue details') and could be more specific without adding bulk.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter but lacks details on behavior, error cases, and return values. For a simple retrieval tool, it meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that 'work_queue_id' is a 'UUID', which provides semantic context beyond the schema's 'string' type. However, it doesn't explain format, validation, or where to obtain the ID, leaving gaps. With one parameter and partial compensation, a baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get details of a specific work queue by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get details') and resource ('work queue'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_work_queue_by_name' or 'get_work_queues', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_work_queue_by_name' (for lookup by name) or 'get_work_queues' (for listing multiple queues), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get a work queue by name' and 'Returns: Work queue details', which implies a read-only operation but doesn't confirm safety (e.g., no destructive effects). It lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'details' include. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are somewhat redundant with the schema and could be more integrated, but overall it's efficient with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with 1 parameter), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Work queue details' includes, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_work_queue'. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It specifies 'name: The work queue name', which matches the schema's parameter but doesn't elaborate on format, constraints, or examples. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, but here it's 3 as the description provides basic semantics but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap (e.g., no info on name uniqueness or case sensitivity).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a work queue by name' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('work queue') with the key constraint 'by name'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_work_queue' (likely by ID) and 'get_work_queues' (list all), though not explicitly named. However, it's not fully specific about what 'get' entails (e.g., retrieve details vs. status).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_work_queue' (possibly by ID) or 'get_work_queues' (list all), nor does it specify prerequisites such as authentication or workspace context. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional filtering and returns a list with details, but lacks critical information such as pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset but not explained), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only (though 'Get' suggests it). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized: a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose with the args, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a list retrieval tool with filtering), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose, parameters, and return type, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination, errors) and usage context. Without an output schema, it doesn't explain the structure of returned details, leaving gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters (limit, offset, name, is_paused) and briefly explains their purposes (e.g., 'Filter by name'), adding meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't provide details like default values, constraints (e.g., limit ranges), or how filtering works (e.g., exact match vs. substring). This offers some value but falls short of fully compensating for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a list of work queues with optional filtering.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('work queues'), and the optional filtering adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_work_queue' (singular) or 'get_work_queue_by_name', which might handle individual retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools such as 'get_work_queue' (for single queue retrieval) or 'get_work_queue_by_name' (for retrieval by name), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'Workspace details' includes. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though it could be more front-loaded by integrating parameter details into the main description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value 'Workspace details' or address error cases, making it inadequate for a tool that likely returns complex data. More context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal semantics by specifying 'workspace_id: The workspace UUID,' which clarifies the parameter type beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides basic but insufficient detail, such as format examples or validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get a workspace by ID,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_workspace_by_handle' or 'get_workspaces,' which limits its differentiation from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_workspace_by_handle' or 'get_workspaces.' It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a UUID versus a handle, or when to prefer this over listing all workspaces.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Pause') but doesn't explain whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to active runs, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns. It's front-loaded with the core action and uses minimal sentences. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are efficient, though the 'Returns' part could be more specific.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, prerequisites, and the confirmation message format. Given the complexity of pausing a deployment schedule, more context is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'deployment_id' as 'The deployment UUID', adding meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't provide format examples, validation rules, or where to find the UUID, leaving some gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Pause') and resource ('a deployment's schedule'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pause_work_queue' or contrast with 'resume_deployment_schedule', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, conditions for pausing, or what happens after pausing. It also doesn't reference related tools like 'resume_deployment_schedule' or 'set_deployment_schedule' for 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 states the tool restarts a flow run, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't describe what 'restart' entails (e.g., does it create a new run, reset state, or resume execution?), potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement followed by separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. However, it could be more front-loaded by integrating the parameter details into the main description for faster scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool restarting flow runs), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the restart behavior, return value details beyond 'Details of the new flow run', error conditions, or how it fits with siblings. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal semantics: it names the parameter ('flow_run_id') and specifies it's a 'UUID', which clarifies the format beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this provides basic but incomplete context—it doesn't explain where to find the UUID or validation rules. The baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, but here there's 1 parameter with some added value, warranting a 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Restart') and resource ('a flow run'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'cancel_flow_run' by focusing on restarting rather than terminating. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'set_flow_run_state'), so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the flow run must be in a restartable state), exclusions (e.g., cannot restart a completed flow run), or comparisons to siblings like 'cancel_flow_run' or 'set_flow_run_state'. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Resume') and a return ('Confirmation message'), but fails to detail critical traits like required permissions, whether this is a mutating operation, potential side effects, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured sections for args and returns. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels add slight redundancy. Overall, it's efficiently sized for its content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutating nature (implied by 'resume'), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It misses details on behavioral context, error handling, and interaction with sibling tools like 'pause_deployment_schedule', making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds minimal value by specifying 'deployment_id: The deployment UUID', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type. However, it doesn't explain format details or constraints, and with only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Resume') and resource ('a deployment's schedule'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'pause_deployment_schedule' by specifying the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly mention this contrast. The description avoids tautology by not merely restating the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'pause_deployment_schedule' or 'set_deployment_schedule', nor does it mention prerequisites like whether the deployment must be paused first. It lacks explicit context for usage decisions, relying solely on the verb 'resume' to imply its role.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a state-setting operation (implying mutation) but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on invalid state transitions. The 'Returns' line is vague ('Result of the state change operation') and provides no insight into success/failure responses.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, and the parameter explanations are necessary given 0% schema coverage. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanations into a single paragraph.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like error conditions, side effects, or response format. While it explains parameters adequately, it lacks context about how this tool fits into the broader workflow system (e.g., relationship to flow runs).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters: task_run_id is explained as 'The task run UUID', state includes helpful examples ('SCHEDULED', 'RUNNING', etc.), and message is described as 'optional' with purpose. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints or validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('a task run's state'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'set_flow_run_state' by specifying it operates on task runs rather than flow runs. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other state-setting tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid task_run_id), constraints (e.g., valid state transitions), or relationships with sibling tools like 'set_flow_run_state' or 'restart_flow_run'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a variable' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, rate limits, or error conditions. The return statement mentions 'Details of the created variable' but doesn't specify format or content.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args/Returns structure is clear and organized, though slightly verbose for such a simple tool. Every sentence earns its place by explaining parameters and return value, but could be more tightly integrated into a single paragraph.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate basics but lacks depth. It covers what the tool does and parameter meanings, but misses behavioral context (permissions, idempotency, errors) and doesn't fully explain the return value format. For a creation tool with no structured support, this is minimally viable but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'name' as the variable name, 'value' with type examples (string, dict, list, etc.), and 'tags' as optional tags. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify constraints like name format or tag structure. With 0% schema coverage, this is strong compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a variable'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_variable', 'update_variable', and 'delete_variable' by specifying creation rather than retrieval, modification, or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_variables' or specify what type of variable system this is (e.g., workflow variables vs. environment variables).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies creation, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether variables must be unique), when not to use it (e.g., if a variable already exists), or explicit alternatives like 'update_variable' for modifications. The description assumes the context is obvious without providing usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Create') but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the creation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The return statement is vague ('Details of the created work queue'), offering minimal insight into output behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, making it easy to parse. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the return statement is somewhat vague, and the overall text could be more concise by integrating parameter details more tightly, but it remains efficient with minimal fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a creation tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details, error handling, and explicit output structure. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all four parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'name: The name for the work queue'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's property names. However, it doesn't detail constraints like name uniqueness or concurrency limit ranges, leaving some semantic gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a work queue.' It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('work queue'), making it unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_work_queue' or 'get_work_queue' beyond the obvious action difference, which keeps it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a workspace or permissions, or when to choose 'create_work_queue' over 'update_work_queue' or 'get_work_queue'. This lack of context leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action is 'Delete', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, required permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on related resources), or error conditions (e.g., invalid ID handling). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by brief 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter details, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., permanence, errors), usage context, or return value specifics beyond a generic 'Confirmation message'. For a mutation tool with zero structured support, more comprehensive guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it specifies that 'block_document_id' is a 'UUID', which clarifies the expected format beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it doesn't detail UUID format constraints (e.g., version).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a block document by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_block_document' by specifying deletion rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_deployment', 'delete_flow') in terms of what a 'block document' is, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the block document ID from a prior operation), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_block_document' for verification. Without such context, the agent lacks direction on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool deletes a flow and returns a confirmation message, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, required permissions, side effects (e.g., cascading deletion of related runs), error conditions, or rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Delete a flow by ID'), followed by brief, structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address safety concerns, error handling, or output details beyond a vague 'confirmation message,' leaving gaps that could hinder correct agent invocation in a production context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it specifies that flow_id is a 'UUID' (clarifying format beyond the schema's generic 'string' type) and ties it to identifying the flow to delete. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates, though it doesn't detail UUID format examples or validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a flow by ID'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling deletion tools like delete_flow_run or delete_deployment, which operate on different resources but share the same 'delete' verb pattern.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description specifies 'by ID,' it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a flow ID from get_flows), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete active flows), or comparisons with similar tools like delete_flow_run for run-level deletions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving details but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), or response format details. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by brief but clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output specifics, which could hinder effective agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that 'block_document_id' is a UUID for identifying the specific block document. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic type information, though it doesn't detail format constraints or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('block document by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'get_block_documents' (plural), which appears to retrieve multiple documents rather than a single one by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_block_documents' or other retrieval tools in the sibling list. The description only states what it does without context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions filtering by name pattern and pagination (limit/offset), but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' in the return includes. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations and return information. Each sentence adds value, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' formatting could be more integrated. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides adequate parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. It mentions what the tool returns ('list of block documents with their details') but doesn't specify format, structure, or example. For a read operation with filtering and pagination, more behavioral disclosure would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the 0% schema coverage. It explains that 'block_type_slug' filters by block type, 'limit' controls maximum returns, 'offset' enables skipping, and 'name' filters by pattern - providing clear semantic meaning for all 4 parameters. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'block documents by block type', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_block_document' (singular) by indicating it retrieves multiple documents. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other list tools like 'get_block_types' or 'get_variables' beyond the specific resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare it to similar tools like 'get_block_document' (singular) or other filtering options. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'a list of block types with their details,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't address key behavioral aspects like pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset but not explained), error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves the agent with insufficient operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return explanations. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, and every sentence adds value. The only minor improvement could be integrating the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on output structure (beyond 'list with details'), error handling, and sibling differentiation. For a read operation with filtering, this is adequate but leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter's purpose: 'limit' for maximum returns, 'offset' for skipping items, and 'slug' for filtering by pattern. This adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage and only provides titles. However, it lacks details on parameter formats (e.g., what constitutes a 'slug pattern') or default behaviors, keeping it from a perfect score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a list of block types with optional filtering.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('block types'), and scope ('list with optional filtering'), which is more specific than just restating the name. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_block_type' (singular), leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites, such as whether it's for browsing all block types versus retrieving specific ones. With sibling tools like 'get_block_type' (singular) available, the lack of differentiation is a significant gap in usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional filtering' and lists parameters, but doesn't describe important behaviors like pagination mechanics (limit/offset interaction), default ordering, error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a list operation with 7 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized parameter and return sections. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 7 parameters, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' headings could be more integrated with the natural language flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. It covers what the tool does and what parameters exist, but doesn't explain how they work together, what the return structure looks like, or any operational constraints. This is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides a clear parameter list with brief explanations for all 7 parameters, adding significant value beyond the 0% schema description coverage. Each parameter gets a one-line explanation of its filtering purpose, though it doesn't provide format details (e.g., tag array structure) or interaction rules between filters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get a list of deployments with optional filtering,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_deployment' (singular) or 'get_flows,' leaving some ambiguity about when to use this versus other list retrieval tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_deployment' (singular retrieval) and 'get_flows' (different resource), the agent receives no explicit comparison or context about when filtering deployments is preferred over other list operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, though the structure could be slightly more polished (e.g., using markdown or consistent formatting).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. For a simple read tool, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'flow_run_id: The flow run UUID.' With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates by specifying the parameter is a UUID, which is crucial information not in the schema. Since there's only one parameter, this effectively covers it, earning a high score despite the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get details of a specific flow run by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get details') and resource ('flow run'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_flow_runs' (plural) and 'get_task_run'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like 'get_task_run' beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'get_flow_runs' for listing multiple runs or 'get_task_run' for related resources, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is implied but not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't address important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond mentioning limit/offset), error conditions, or what happens when no filters are provided. The description is minimal and leaves many behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized parameter documentation. The 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections provide logical grouping. While efficient, the initial purpose statement could be slightly more informative about the tool's scope relative to siblings. Every sentence serves a purpose with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate parameter documentation but lacks important context. The return value description ('A list of flow runs with their details') is vague - it doesn't specify what details are included or the response structure. Without annotations covering behavioral aspects and no output schema, the description should provide more complete information about the tool's operation and results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides a comprehensive parameter list with brief explanations for all 9 parameters, despite 0% schema description coverage. It clarifies what each filter does (e.g., 'Filter by flow name', 'Filter by state type', 'ISO formatted datetime string' for time filters). This significantly compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though some parameter details like format examples for tags or state_type values could be more specific.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a list of flow runs with optional filtering.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('flow runs'), and mentions filtering capability. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_flow_run' (singular) or 'get_flow_runs_by_flow' - the description doesn't explain how this differs from those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that retrieve flow runs (get_flow_run, get_flow_runs_by_flow), there's no indication of when this general filtering tool is preferred over more specific ones. The description mentions optional filtering but doesn't provide context about typical use cases or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool returns 'a list of flows with their details,' it doesn't specify important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (beyond limit/offset), or what happens when no filters are applied. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized parameter documentation. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters. The only improvement would be front-loading more critical information about when to use this tool versus siblings, but the current structure is efficient with zero wasted sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It thoroughly documents parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance relative to siblings. The description doesn't explain what 'flows' represent in this context or what details are returned. For a list operation in a rich ecosystem, it should provide more context about the resource being retrieved and how it differs from similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides detailed parameter documentation in the Args section, explaining the purpose of all 6 parameters (limit, offset, flow_name, tags, created_after, created_before). Since schema description coverage is 0%, this documentation compensates fully by adding meaning beyond the bare schema. The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify format details for 'tags' (e.g., exact tag structure) or datetime formats beyond 'ISO formatted'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a list of flows with optional filtering.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('flows'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_flow' (singular) or 'get_flow_runs', which might retrieve different types of flow-related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_flow', 'get_flow_runs', and 'get_flow_runs_by_flow', there's no indication of which tool to choose for different scenarios (e.g., retrieving metadata vs. execution data). The description only mentions optional filtering but doesn't help the agent navigate the tool ecosystem.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional filtering and returns a list with details, but lacks critical information about pagination behavior (beyond limit/offset parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a list tool with 8 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by organized Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool, though the 'Returns' section could be more specific about what 'details' includes. No wasted sentences, but could be slightly more front-loaded with key usage information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides basic parameter documentation but lacks important context. It doesn't explain the relationship between state_type and state_name, doesn't specify whether filters are AND/OR combined, and provides minimal information about the return structure. For a filtering/list tool, this leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about how to effectively use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides valuable parameter semantics by listing all 8 parameters with brief explanations. It clarifies filtering capabilities (task_name, state_type, state_name, tags, time ranges) and pagination parameters (limit, offset). However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or format specifics (e.g., what 'ISO formatted datetime string' means for the time parameters).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get a list of task runs with optional filtering,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_task_run' (singular) or 'get_task_runs_by_flow_run,' leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_task_run' (singular) and 'get_task_runs_by_flow_run' available, there's no indication of when this general list tool is preferred over more specific ones, nor any mention of prerequisites or constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'a list of variables with their details,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by structured parameter and return explanations. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, the formatting with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections is slightly verbose but still efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with filtering), no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral details like pagination, error cases, or sibling differentiation. It's complete enough for basic use but has clear gaps for robust agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'limit' is the 'Maximum number of variables to return,' 'offset' is the 'Number of variables to skip,' and 'name' is for 'Filter by name pattern.' This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing clear semantics for all three parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a list of variables with optional filtering.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('variables'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_variable' (singular) or 'create_variable', leaving room for ambiguity in sibling context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_variable' (for single variable) or 'create_variable', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied through the action but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'accessible workspaces,' hinting at permission-based filtering, but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond args), error handling, or what 'accessible' entails. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the purpose, followed by a clear 'Args' and 'Returns' section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information, though the note on filtering support could be more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does a decent job but has gaps. It covers parameters well and states the return type, but lacks details on authentication, error cases, pagination beyond args, and sibling differentiation. For a list-fetching tool, it's minimally adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters: 'limit' as maximum return count, 'offset' as skip count, and 'name' as a filter with a note on version support. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify default values or filtering syntax.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a list of accessible workspaces.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('workspaces'), and clarifies scope with 'accessible.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workspace' or 'get_workspace_by_handle,' which appear to fetch single workspaces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_workspace' (for a single workspace) or 'get_current_workspace,' nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, such as authentication requirements or workspace access levels.
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 mentions that it returns 'details of the updated work queue' but doesn't specify what 'resume' means operationally (e.g., whether it restarts processing, requires permissions, or has side effects). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with a clear main sentence and structured Args/Returns sections. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the Args/Returns formatting is slightly verbose for a single parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 1 parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter semantics but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or return values, leaving room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning by specifying that 'work_queue_id' is a 'UUID', which clarifies the format beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this compensates adequately, though it could note that this is a required identifier.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'resume' and the resource 'work queue', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pause_work_queue' or explain what 'resuming' entails in this context, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pause_work_queue' or 'update_work_queue', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the work queue must be paused). The description only states what it does without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions this is a state-setting operation (implying mutation), it doesn't describe permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens with invalid states, or any rate limits. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the 'Returns' line is somewhat vague ('Result of the state change operation'). Overall, it's appropriately sized and well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic parameter explanations but lacks critical context about behavioral implications, error conditions, and what constitutes valid state transitions. It's minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the full operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: 'flow_run_id' is identified as a UUID, 'state' gets example values, and 'message' is explained as optional explanatory text. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints or validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set a flow run's state') and identifies the resource ('flow run'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'set_task_run_state' or 'cancel_flow_run' that also modify flow/task run states, so it doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cancel_flow_run', 'restart_flow_run', or 'set_task_run_state'. The description lacks context about appropriate state transitions, prerequisites, or when this operation is valid versus other state-changing operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether all fields must be provided or if partial updates are allowed (schema suggests nullable fields), what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to unspecified fields. The return statement is vague ('Details of the updated deployment').
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting. Every sentence serves a purpose: the opening statement defines the tool, the Args section documents parameters, and the Returns section indicates output. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the opening statement with the parameter list.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic parameter semantics but lacks critical context. It doesn't explain the update behavior (partial vs. full, idempotency), error conditions, authentication needs, or what the return 'Details' include. For a tool with this complexity, more behavioral and usage context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a clear list of all 7 parameters with brief explanations of what each represents (e.g., 'New name for the deployment', 'New tags'). This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare titles. However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints, formats (e.g., UUID format for deployment_id), or that most parameters are optional (nullable) except deployment_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and resource 'deployment', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling update tools like 'update_variable' or 'update_work_queue' beyond the resource name, nor does it specify what aspects of a deployment can be updated beyond the listed parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing deployment), when not to use it (e.g., for partial updates vs. full replacements), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'get_deployment' (to check current state) or 'delete_deployment'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens when only some parameters are provided (given defaults are null). The 'Returns' statement is vague and doesn't describe the response format or potential errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized parameter and return sections. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states the action, the Args section documents parameters, and the Returns section indicates output. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating parameter context into the opening sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It documents parameters well but lacks behavioral details (permissions, side effects) and output specifics. Compared to siblings like 'pause_work_queue', it doesn't clarify how partial updates work or error conditions, leaving gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations that add meaningful context beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'work_queue_id' is a UUID, other parameters represent 'new' values, and 'is_paused' relates to 'paused status'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't explain constraints like valid ranges for 'concurrency_limit'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('a work queue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_work_queue' and 'delete_work_queue' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the work queue are being updated beyond the parameter list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing work queue ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'pause_work_queue' or 'resume_work_queue' that also affect work queue status. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get[s] task runs' (implying a read operation) and mentions pagination via limit/offset, but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it's safe (read-only), what permissions are needed, how errors are handled (e.g., invalid flow_run_id), or if there are rate limits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear 'Args:' section with bullet points for each parameter and a 'Returns:' statement. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an adequate job: it explains the tool's purpose and parameters. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., safety, errors) and doesn't fully describe the return value beyond 'A list of task runs' (no structure or examples). For a read operation with filtering and pagination, this is minimally viable but leaves room for improvement in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for all 4 parameters: flow_run_id is explained as 'The flow run UUID', limit as 'Maximum number of task runs to return', offset as 'Number of task runs to skip', and state_type as 'Filter by state type (e.g., "RUNNING", "COMPLETED", "FAILED")'. This clarifies purpose and usage beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., UUID format) or default values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get task runs for a specific flow run.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('task runs'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_task_runs' (which presumably gets all task runs) by focusing on a specific flow run. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_task_run' (singular) or 'get_flow_run' (which gets the flow run itself), so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'get_task_runs' (without flow run filter) or 'get_flow_run' (which might include task runs), nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid flow_run_id). The only implied usage is when you have a flow run ID and want its task runs, but this is basic and lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it returns 'Details of the updated work queue,' which hints at a mutation with a response, but doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if it's reversible, what 'pause' entails operationally, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output specifics, leaving room for improvement in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly documents the single parameter 'work_queue_id' as 'The work queue UUID,' adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's 0% coverage. Since there's only one parameter and it's fully explained in the description, this compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Pause') and resource ('a work queue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'resume_work_queue' or 'delete_work_queue' beyond the obvious action difference, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'resume_work_queue' or 'delete_work_queue', nor does it mention prerequisites or context. The description only states what it does, not when or why to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'Get's data (implying read-only) and returns a list, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (limit/offset usage), rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a safe operation. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the Args into the main text, but the structure is effective and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., pagination, errors) and output specifics beyond 'A list of flow runs.' For a read operation with filtering and pagination, more context on how results are structured or limited would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all 4 parameters: flow_id is explained as 'The flow UUID,' limit as 'Maximum number of flow runs to return,' offset as 'Number of flow runs to skip,' and state_type as 'Filter by state type' with examples. This goes well beyond the bare schema, providing clear context for each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get flow runs for a specific flow.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('flow runs'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_flow_runs' (which presumably gets all flow runs, not filtered by a specific flow). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_flow_run' (singular) or other filtering tools, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying it's for 'a specific flow,' suggesting it should be used when you have a flow_id and want its runs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_flow_runs' (which might get all runs) or 'get_flow_run' (singular), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves some ambiguity for the 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Set' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose whether this overwrites existing schedules, what permissions are required, whether the change is immediate or requires deployment restart, or what happens if invalid parameters are provided. The return statement mentions 'Updated schedule details' but provides no specifics about format or content.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses bullet points effectively. While appropriately sized, the 'Args' section could be slightly more concise by combining related parameters (cron/interval_seconds as alternatives). Every sentence earns its place by adding value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but has significant gaps. The parameter semantics are well-covered, but missing behavioral context (permissions, side effects, error conditions) and output details make this incomplete for confident tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential semantic context for all 5 parameters that the schema lacks. It explains that 'cron' and 'interval_seconds' are alternatives, clarifies that 'anchor_date' is required for interval schedules, and provides meaningful context about each parameter's purpose. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Set') and resource ('a deployment's schedule'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'pause_deployment_schedule' or 'resume_deployment_schedule', which appear to be related schedule management tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing deployment), nor does it explain when to use cron versus interval scheduling. With sibling tools like 'get_deployment_schedule' and schedule pause/resume tools available, the lack of differentiation is a significant gap.
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:

[![mcp-prefect MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/allen-munsch/mcp-prefect/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/allen-munsch/mcp-prefect)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-prefect MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/allen-munsch/mcp-prefect/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/allen-munsch/mcp-prefect)

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/allen-munsch/mcp-prefect'

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