mcp-redmine
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action; even the two file-uploading tools (attach_file_to_issue, upload_project_file) are clearly separated by destination, and create_or_update_wiki_page is explicit about its dual nature. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Naming Consistency5/5All tools follow a verb_noun (or verb_adjective_noun) snake_case convention; the few composite verbs like chain_issues and bulk_update_issues still fit the pattern. No camelCase or mixed styles.
Tool Count4/5With 73 tools, this is a large surface, but it mirrors the breadth of Redmine's API across projects, issues, wiki, news, users, groups, time entries, and more. Every tool addresses a specific endpoint or workflow, so the count is justified even if it feels heavy for an agent.
Completeness4/5The coverage is comprehensive across the main Redmine resources, including lifecycle operations for issues, projects, versions, categories, users, groups, wiki pages, news, and time entries. Minor gaps remain — the Documents module only exposes categories, not document files, and there is no way to manage project modules or issue workflows.
Average 4.1/5 across 73 of 73 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 32 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, but it only states the basic operation and that IDs are returned. It does not mention ordering, filtering, error behavior, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits, leaving 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the primary sentence. The Args section is redundant with the schema, but it does not significantly bloat the description, so it remains appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and minimal usage guidance, the description is incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool. While the output schema covers return values, the description fails to provide contextual guidance beyond the literal action, leaving the description under-informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it merely repeats the parameter name and a tautological 'project identifier' with no format, examples, or additional context. This provides no meaningful guidance on what value to pass.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists a project's versions (milestones) and includes their IDs, making the action and resource specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools or version-related mutation tools, so it lacks the explicit distinction needed for 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need to list a project's versions) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like list_trackers or create_project_version. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, so the agent must infer the 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 only the action ('Remove a user from a group') but does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, failure conditions (e.g., user not in group), or whether the operation is idempotent. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief and front-loaded with the core action. The Args block is slightly redundant with the schema, but it does provide a human-readable label. For a simple two-parameter tool, the conciseness is appropriate, though the Args section could be trimmed without loss.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a mutation with no annotations, and though an output schema exists, the description does not explain return values or success/failure behavior. There is no mention of permissions, group implications, or edge cases. The description is complete enough for a trivial demo, but it lacks the contextual coverage expected for a real-world removal operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already lists group_id and user_id with titles, and the description merely reiterates 'group_id: group ID' and 'user_id: user ID' without adding any constraints, format details, or relationships between parameters. This does not meaningfully compensate for the 0% schema description coverage, as it provides virtually no extra information beyond the property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('user from a group'). It is immediately distinguished from siblings like add_user_to_group, get_group, and list_groups. The one-sentence summary is unambiguous and directly tied to 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the complementary add_user_to_group or the read-only get_group. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context about group membership checks are mentioned. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Remove'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It omits any statement about being read-only, pagination, permissions, or side effects. The mention of relation types adds scope but not behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a single sentence front-loaded with the main action. However, the 'Args:' section redundantly restates the schema parameter, adding minor waste. Overall, it is concise and structured appropriately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read tool, the description covers the basic purpose, but it lacks usage guidelines and substantive parameter semantics. Given no annotations and no schema descriptions, the tool definition is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke it without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description simply repeats the parameter name as 'issue ID,' adding no information beyond the schema's parameter name and type. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to provide meaningful guidance such as how to obtain the ID or any constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'an issue's relations' and enumerates example relation types (precedes, blocks, related to). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_issue_relation and delete_issue_relation, which perform different actions on relations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, leaving usage to be inferred from the tool name and purpose. There are no mentions of prerequisites, conditions, or alternative tools for scenarios like creating or deleting relations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive nature implicitly through 'delete' but provides no details on irreversibility, permission requirements, or potential side effects (e.g., related records affected).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that immediately conveys the core function. Every word is purposeful, and there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one integer parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any usage context, such as typical workflow placement or assumptions about existing entries, leaving the agent with only the most basic understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, time_entry_id, is referenced by the phrase 'by ID', but this adds no new meaning beyond the schema's property name and type. There is no explanation of how to obtain the ID or any format constraints beyond the integer type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Delete') on a specific resource ('time entry') and identifies the key identifier ('by ID'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools by 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_time_entry or log_time. There are no mentions of prerequisites, such as needing to retrieve the time entry first, or scenarios where deletion might be inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states what is included (project memberships and roles) but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any permission requirements, potential error cases, or whether user_id refers to a system-wide ID or a project-local ID.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main action. The Args section is clearly separated and the entire text is well within reasonable length with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity tool (1 param, has output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and key return content (projects, roles). However, it lacks usage context, alternative differentiation, and any behavioral caveats that would fully prepare an agent, especially without annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does 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 'user_id: user ID', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's title and type. It does not explain how to obtain the user ID or any constraints (e.g., must be an existing user).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly states the resource (user's details), including project memberships and roles. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_users (list) and get_current_user (current user).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_current_user is for the authenticated user or that list_users is for browsing users, nor any conditions like 'use this when you have a user_id'.
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 bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action, without mentioning idempotency, results for duplicate members, required permissions, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, leads with the primary purpose, and uses a clean Args block for parameters. Every sentence is purposeful and there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple add operation, and the description covers the basic intent and parameter-sourcing hints. However, with no annotations and no mention of return behavior, idempotency, or permissions, the description leaves important contextual gaps that an agent would benefit from knowing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds useful hints for 'user_id' and 'role_ids' by pointing to list_users and list_roles, but 'project_identifier' is only restated as 'project identifier', providing no new meaning. This partial compensation supports a mid-range score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Add' and names the resource ('project member'), and clarifies that it involves 'one or more roles'. This makes it distinct from siblings like 'remove_project_member' and 'update_project_member', though it does not explicitly name 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes practical guidance by referencing 'use list_users' and 'use list_roles' for obtaining valid parameter values. However, it lacks explicit direction on when to use this tool instead of 'update_project_member' or 'remove_project_member', leaving the choice largely implicit.
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 indicates the destructive nature via 'Delete' but does not disclose irreversibility, permissions, cascading effects, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences plus a minimal Args block; front-loaded with the action and no unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete-by-ID tool, it covers the essential action and parameter, and an output schema exists. However, it lacks details on failure conditions, permanence, and permissions, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description's 'news_id: news item ID' essentially restates the parameter title without adding context on how to obtain or validate the ID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Delete a news item' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_news, update_news, and get_news_item.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the verb 'Delete' but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The verb 'show' implies a read-only operation, and the description states what is returned (members and projects). However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose potential errors, authentication requirements, or side effects, leaving a 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a simple args list. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is largely adequate. It could benefit from usage examples or error conditions, but the core action and result are clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description restates 'group_id: group ID' which adds no meaning beyond the schema's title 'Group Id.' With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining what a group ID references or how to obtain it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Show a group's details: its members and the projects it belongs to.' It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('group') and differentiates from sibling tools like list_groups by specifying the returned details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_groups or get_user. The description does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or context for when this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Show' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not disclose error handling, permission requirements, or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple get tool but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, front-loading the purpose ('Show a time entry's details') and following with a compact Args section. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter get tool with an output schema, the description is appropriately complete. It states the purpose and provides a practical usage hint, while the output schema handles return-value documentation. No additional context is needed given the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful guidance by explaining the parameter is a time entry ID and recommending 'use list_time_entries' to obtain it. This goes beyond the schema's raw type definition, though it does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('a time entry's details'), clearly indicating a retrieval operation. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_time_entries (listing), log_time (creating), and update_time_entry (modifying), but does not explicitly name these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The instruction 'use list_time_entries' provides a practical hint for obtaining the time_entry_id, implying a sequential workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others, nor does it describe exclusions or alternative approaches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and no destructive behavior is mentioned. However, it adds no additional context about pagination, error handling, or authentication requirements, making it adequate but not informative beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the 'Args' section repeats the schema's parameter name and essentially provides no added value, making that part redundant. Overall, it is concise but could be slightly leaner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. Yet it lacks guidance on parameter format and usage context, so it is minimally complete for an experienced user but not fully self-sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description duplicates the schema by stating 'project_identifier: project identifier' without adding any meaning beyond the title. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining what constitutes a project identifier (e.g., ID vs key format) but fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List a project's members and each one's roles' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_project_member, remove_project_member, and update_project_member by focusing on the read-only listing operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing project members but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so it relies on the user inferring the appropriate context from the simple verb.
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 but only restates the tool's purpose ('List every wiki page') without disclosing side effects, read-only guarantees, permissions, authentication needs, or error behavior. It does not add any behavioral context beyond what the name implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose sentence, followed by a compact args section. Every line is purposeful, and there is no redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the basic operation and parameter, which is adequate for selection. However, it lacks notes on edge cases (e.g., empty project, invalid identifier) and does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, which would be helpful given no annotations exist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single parameter with no description (0% coverage), so the description's 'project_identifier: project identifier (e.g. 'my-project')' provides essential meaning. It clarifies the parameter's purpose and gives a format example, though it doesn't specify whether the identifier is a slug, numeric ID, or full path.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and resource 'every wiki page of a project', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like get_wiki_page and delete_wiki_page. The phrase 'every' emphasizes the all-inclusive scope, leaving no ambiguity about the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need all wiki pages for a given project_identifier, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_wiki_page or search, nor does it mention what not to use it for. The context is clear but lacks any exclusions or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the operation leaves other members untouched, which is useful, but it does not mention idempotency, what happens if the user is already a member, authorization requirements, or failure modes. This is a minimal but non-empty disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded. The single-sentence purpose is immediately clear, and the Args section is minimal and directly useful. No unnecessary words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with an output schema, so detailed return value documentation is unnecessary. However, the description lacks context such as whether the user/group must already exist, what error behavior occurs for duplicates, and how this relates to remove_user_from_group. The basic action is covered, but edge-case context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it merely restates the parameter names ('group_id: group ID', 'user_id: user ID') without adding meaningful detail beyond the schema's integer type and title. It does not clarify formats, constraints, or relationships between parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Add') with a clear resource ('a user to a group') and adds a meaningful qualifier ('without touching the other members'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_user_from_group and provides a precise scope of action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The implied usage is to add a user to a group, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like remove_user_from_group or update_group. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions, only the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Show' implies a non-destructive read operation and the list of returned content adds some context, but it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., unknown project identifier), authentication needs, or explicitly confirm no side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The only redundancy is the Args line, which repeats schema information without adding value, but it does not make the description excessively long.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return value details are covered externally. The description usefully names the project aspects returned, and for a one-parameter read-only tool it is largely sufficient, though it omits identifier provenance and error scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description's Args section merely restates the parameter name ('project_identifier: project identifier'). This adds no meaningful semantic detail: it does not explain the expected format, whether it is a numeric ID or slug, or how to obtain the identifier.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb 'Show', identifies the resource as 'a project's details', and lists concrete content areas (description, enabled modules, trackers, categories). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects, create_project, update_project, and archive_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is for retrieving a single project by identifier, as opposed to listing or modifying projects, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_projects. There are no exclusions or prerequisite guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Remove a watcher from an issue' without mentioning permissions, side effects, failure conditions, or confirmation behavior. This is minimal and leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence followed by a minimal Args list. Every piece of text earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded. There is no unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two integer parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential action and parameter semantics. It does not elaborate on edge cases or behavioral specifics, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description's Args section is the only source of parameter meaning. It adds some clarity: 'issue_id: issue ID' is somewhat tautological, but 'user_id: ID of the user to remove' clarifies the role of the parameter beyond the schema's title. It provides partial compensation but not deep semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Remove a watcher from an issue,' which clearly identifies the action and the resource. This is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'add_watcher'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it or when to prefer alternatives. Usage is implied from the purpose, but there are no contextual cues or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the 'leave alone' semantics for name and assigned_to_id, which is valuable. However, it does not mention return values, error behavior, required permissions, or side effects beyond the mutation, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with the purpose front-loaded and every sentence earning its place. The Args section is compact and clearly structured, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 3-parameter update tool with an output schema, the description covers parameter semantics and basic purpose. However, it lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral context (e.g., error cases, permissions), which would be expected given no annotations. It is minimally adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides explicit meaning for all three parameters beyond the schema: category_id references list_project_categories, name uses empty string as 'leave alone', and assigned_to_id uses 0 as 'leave alone'. With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates and gives the agent precise invocation instructions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Update an issue category,' which is a clear verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_project_category and delete_project_category through the verb 'update,' though it doesn't explicitly name 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage via the verb 'update' and provides a hint to use list_project_categories for obtaining category_id. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create or delete, nor does it give exclusions or alternative tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral context. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, idempotency, failure conditions, or permission requirements. This lacks transparency for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: one sentence for purpose followed by a clear parameter list. Every element earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need no explanation. However, with no annotations, the description should mention behavioral nuances such as whether adding an existing watcher is an error or idempotent. It provides a usable baseline but misses these details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no property descriptions, but the description includes an Args section explaining both parameters. user_id is helpfully clarified as the user to add, with a pointer to list_users, adding meaningful value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a watcher to an issue') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like remove_watcher by naming the exact operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when you need to add a watcher to an issue, and it points to list_users for obtaining a valid user_id. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as referencing remove_watcher for removal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states that files are 'optionally tied to a version,' which is useful context, but it does not mention any side effects, permissions, pagination, or error conditions. The description only says 'List,' which implies read-only, but this is not explicit given the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear first sentence, a helpful clarification sentence, and a simple Args section. Every sentence contributes value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one parameter and an output schema, so the description is not required to detail return values. It explains the purpose, the distinction from issue attachments, and the nature of the files. A minor gap is that it does not mention how to identify the project (e.g., from the 'list_projects' endpoint), but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple read-only listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single 'project_identifier' parameter with no description (0% schema coverage). The description's Args section repeats 'project identifier' verbatim, adding no additional meaning beyond the parameter name. It does not clarify the expected format (e.g., numeric ID or slug) or how to obtain it, so the parameter semantics are minimally explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: listing files under a project's Files tab. It further distinguishes itself from issue attachments by clarifying that these are project-level artifacts, which effectively differentiates it from the sibling 'attach_file_to_issue' tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description sets clear context about what the tool covers (project files, not issue attachments) and gives an example of the kind of files (builds, installers, documents). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, but the clarification helps an agent select this tool over issue attachment related options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It explains the meaning of assigned_to_id ('user assigned by default to issues in this category') and the default value (0 = none), which adds useful context. However, it does not mention permissions, idempotency, or the response format, leaving a moderate transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a single clear sentence and an Args list. Every line adds value—there is no repetition of schema details or unnecessary filler. It is efficiently structured for quick scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple creation tool, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings. Although it lacks specifics on project_identifier format and any potential constraints (e.g., uniqueness), the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Overall, it is reasonably complete given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides an example for name ('Infrastructure') and clarifies assigned_to_id semantics and default. The project_identifier field is described only as 'project identifier', which adds little beyond the parameter name, but the overall parameter explanations are helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Create an issue category in a project.' The verb 'create' plus the resource 'issue category' makes the tool's purpose immediately apparent. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like update_project_category and delete_project_category.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies creation, there is no explicit context or mention of related tools such as list_project_categories or update_project_category. Users are left to infer usage solely from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool does without disclosing return format, pagination, or safety profile. For a read-only operation, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, though it is implied by 'list'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and the args list is clear and structured. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with an output schema present, the description covers the main behavior and parameters adequately. It might benefit from noting pagination or ordering, but it is sufficient for a straightforward list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains both parameters, which is essential since the schema provides no descriptions. It clarifies that project_identifier restricts to a project and empty means all, and that limit controls the maximum number of news items. This adds meaning beyond the bare parameter names and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List news items' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_news_item (single item) and create_news/update_news/delete_news (mutations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the name and context imply it is for listing multiple news items, while get_news_item is for a specific one. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool lists categories (implying a read-only operation) and includes IDs, but does not disclose potential error cases, permissions, pagination, or other behavioral traits. The verb 'List' implies non-destructive, but no additional context 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two brief sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, with no redundant wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the input and the nature of the output. It doesn't discuss error handling or permissions, but for a straightforward list operation, the provided information is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an Args section with an example ('my-project') for the project_identifier parameter, providing meaning beyond the raw schema which only gives the type and title. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists a project's issue categories and includes their IDs, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_document_categories by specifying 'issue categories'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states the function without context about how it compares to other category listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavior context by explaining special parameter values (issue_id 0 = ignore, user_id 'me' = API key's user) and date format (YYYY-MM-DD). However, it does not disclose broader behavior such as pagination, sorting, or whether the API key needs special permissions, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately concise and well-structured, with an opening sentence followed by an Args block. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the Args section somewhat repeats parameter names already present in the schema. Still, the explanations are valuable and justify the length. Each sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which removes the need to describe return values), the description covers the essential filtering behavior and special cases. The main gap is the lack of clarity on whether start_date/end_date are inclusive or exclusive, and no mention of pagination beyond the limit parameter. Overall, it is adequate for a list tool with optional filters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only titles and defaults for 6 parameters with zero descriptions, so the description's parameter explanations are crucial. The description adds clear semantics for every parameter: how project_identifier filters, what issue_id 0 means, how user_id interprets 'me', date formats, and limit as a maximum. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List time entries, with optional filters.' The verb 'list' and resource 'time entries' make the primary purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_time_entry, but the distinction is implicitly clear: this lists multiple entries, while get_time_entry fetches a single one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: you would use this tool when you need to list time entries with optional filters. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as get_time_entry for a single entry or log_time for creating an entry. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, but the presence of filter parameters strongly implies the intended use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It mentions that the path is resolved on the server machine, which is helpful, but it omits other important write-operation details such as overwrite behavior, file size limits, permissions required, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, a single path caveat, and a clean bulleted list of parameters. No filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all parameters and notes the critical server-side path behavior. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. It lacks some potential details like overwrite or versioning behavior, but it's adequate for a simple file upload tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the Args block compensates by giving each parameter a brief explanation. Most parameters receive meaningful context (e.g., file_name: 'empty = use the file's own name'), though project_identifier's explanation is tautological.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The first sentence clearly states the action (Publish), resource (file), and destination (a project's Files tab). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like attach_file_to_issue and attach_file_to_wiki_page, which target 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implies when to use this tool (for publishing project files), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives to consider. The note about server-side path resolution provides a usage caveat but not a full comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses useful traits such as identifier immutability and the conservative private default, but it omits permission requirements, duplication behavior, and other side effects of project creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a concise one-line summary followed by a compact Args list. Every parameter earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and the description covers all parameters with behavioral notes, the tool is mostly complete. It lacks explicit usage guidance against update_project, but that is a guidelines issue; the creation behavior is well specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: name as display name, identifier format and immutability, parent_project_id for subprojects, and is_public visibility plus default context. This adds significant meaning beyond the plain schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Create a project,' a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_project_version or create_project_category. The arg list reinforces the operation is about project creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of update_project or archive_project. The parent_project_id note implies subproject use, but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key side effect: users themselves persist and only lose permissions derived from the group. This goes beyond the basic action and provides valuable context, though it doesn't mention other consequences like irreversibility or auth requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with a clear action statement, adds a necessary behavioral clarification, and documents the parameter in a single line. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple delete operation with one parameter, and the description covers the essential behavior and side effects. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need elaboration. It misses nothing critical for most use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description says 'group_id: group ID', which merely restates the schema's parameter name and type without adding meaningful detail. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description was expected to compensate but fails to provide any additional guidance on the parameter's value or sources.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Delete a group' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies that users remain but lose permissions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_user_from_group or update_group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool by explaining the effect on users (they lose permissions but aren't deleted), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly mentions the cascading deletion of sub-pages per Redmine's default behavior, which is a critical side effect. However, it does not mention permissions, irreversibility, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a compact argument list. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or fluff content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with two parameters, the description covers the most important nuance (sub-page deletion). An output schema exists, so return values are not the description's job. Minor gaps around permissions and reversibility exist, but they do not block correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does 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 restates the parameter names with minimal elaboration ('project identifier', 'title of the page to delete') without adding format constraints, examples, or usage nuances. This adds little beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and target (wiki page), and pertinently notes the sub-pages behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_wiki_pages, get_wiki_page, and create_or_update_wiki_page, which cover other operations on the same resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes it obvious when to use this tool: when you need to delete a wiki page. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context of the tool name and sibling list provides clear usage context. Lacking a 'when not to use' statement, but not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the sentinel values (0 for hours/activity, empty for comment) indicating partial updates and that these values cannot be used to set fields to zero/empty. However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or side effects, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single introductory sentence followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place, with no verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple update operation, the description covers all parameter semantics and the partial-update behavior, and an output schema is present. However, it lacks usage guidance and any note on error handling, though these are not critical for basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning and sentinel behavior. This adds crucial semantic information beyond the bare schema types and titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing time entry' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like log_time (create) and delete_time_entry. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It simply states the operation without contextual advice, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action and parameters, without mentioning expected side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens if a version already exists. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description leads with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact Args list. Every line provides useful information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's basic function and parameter meanings, but lacks guidance on when to use it versus alternatives and lacks behavioral transparency. Since an output schema exists, not explaining return values is acceptable, but the missing usage and behavior details leave it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by listing all five parameters with meaningful additions: 'status' gives allowed values, 'due_date' specifies format, and 'name' provides an example. This adds value beyond the bare schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a version (milestone) in a project' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_version, delete_version, and list_project_versions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool: to create a version. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the verb 'Create' and the presence of update/delete siblings make the context unambiguous. No exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the delete action and where to get the ID, but does not mention permissions, irreversibility, or any side effects. The destructive nature is only implicit from the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is four lines, in one concise sentence followed by a terse Args block. Every word is useful—no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter delete operation, the description covers the core action and the ID sourcing. The output schema exists, so return values do not need to be explained. However, it lacks transparency about permissions or side effects, which prevents a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by linking relation_id to the 'id' field from list_issue_relations, which is more helpful than the schema's bare integer type. Since there is only one parameter and this explanation is sufficient, it earns a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('relation'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_issue_relation and list_issue_relations. The phrase 'by the relation's ID' pinpoints the exact operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a key usage precondition: use the relation ID from the 'id' field of list_issue_relations. This tells the agent where to obtain the required input. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'every project available' adds a scope trait. However, it does not explicitly state safety (non-mutating), authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or ordering. It is not misleading but lacks explicit disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'List every project available in Redmine.' Every word earns its place; no wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's very low complexity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. The phrase 'available' is slightly vague (could imply only accessible projects vs. all projects), and there's no note about read-only or auth, but for a simple list-all this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to document beyond the schema, and the description adds no parameter information—which is acceptable since none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('projects'), and adds the scope 'every project available in Redmine', clearly distinguishing this from other list_* sibling tools that target different resources. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (call this when you need all projects) but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools like get_project or search. It is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that results are scoped to the API key's user visibility and that empty project_identifier means all queries, which are useful behaviors. However, it does not mention other traits like read-only semantics, pagination, or ordering, though the list verb implies read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one opening sentence stating purpose and scope, followed by a compact parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter list operation with an output schema available, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool lists, the visibility scope, and the parameter's behavior. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. other list tools, but that is more of a usage-guideline gap than a completeness issue.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage (only a title and default), so the description must compensate. The Args section does this well by explaining that project_identifier restricts to a project's queries and that empty means all. It does not specify whether the identifier is a numeric ID or slug, but the core semantics are clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('saved queries (filters)') along with an important scope qualifier ('visible to the API key's user'). This distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools like list_trackers or list_custom_fields by naming the exact resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating it lists saved queries visible to the API key's user, and the optional project_identifier parameter gives context on narrowing results. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions such as not listing queries from other users.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the search semantics (all_words, titles_only, open_issues_only) but does not disclose return format, ordering, pagination, or explicitly state that this is a read-only operation. The output schema likely covers return structure, but behavioral context beyond parameter meanings is limited.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a structured Args block. Each parameter explanation is necessary and earns its place. It is slightly longer than minimal but remains efficient and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given six parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the search scope, filtering options, matching logic, and result limit. It lacks details on result ordering or pagination, but the output schema likely addresses return structure. Overall, it is complete enough for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides meaningful explanations for all six parameters, including defaults and matching behavior. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, offering clarity on query, filtering, and limit semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Search for text') and the resource scope ('across issues, wiki pages, news, and other Redmine objects'). This distinguishes it from sibling list/get tools, which are entity-specific retrievers rather than global text searches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for finding text across multiple Redmine object types but does not explicitly state when to use search versus list_issues or get_issue. It provides parameter context (e.g., restricting by project, titles_only) but 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.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses partial-update semantics ('Only changes the fields that are provided', 'empty = leave alone') and the immutable identifier limitation. However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or whether changes are reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and partial-update behavior, followed by a concise list of parameters. Every sentence adds value; the note about Redmine's identifier limitation is relevant and not wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, parameters, and an important limitation. It could additionally name alternatives or auth requirements, but it is not materially incomplete for a simple project update tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema has no descriptions, the Args section explains each parameter and adds the crucial 'empty = leave alone' semantics for name, description, and homepage. The identifier is also contextualized as immutable. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Update a project', clearly stating the action and resource. It further specifies 'Only changes the fields that are provided', distinguishing this partial-update behavior from create/archive/list siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (updating project fields) and explains that omitted fields are left unchanged, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria such as 'use update_project_member for membership changes.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the file path is resolved on the MCP server machine, and it explains the internal sequence of upload-then-link. However, it omits potential side effects, authorization requirements, or error conditions, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the primary action. The Args list is neat and easy to scan, and each explanation is concise. The note about Redmine's API is slightly extra but still useful context, making the description efficient without being wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has moderate complexity (upload + link) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers all parameters and the critical server-path restriction. It doesn't mention prerequisites like file existence or permission checks, but for this operation the coverage is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for the absence of parameter descriptions in the schema. It provides plain-language definitions for all five parameters, including the nuanced default behavior of file_name ('empty = use the file's own name'). This adds meaningful value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Attach a local file to an issue', a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool attach_file_to_wiki_page. It also explains the two-step composition, making the tool's core function unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states that it combines the two Redmine API steps into one call, implying a convenience benefit, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as attach_file_to_wiki_page or mention when not to use this tool. The usage context is clear but without exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description discloses the destructive and irreversible nature: 'Permanently delete' and 'The file is removed from the server's disk.' This clearly communicates the behavioral impact, though it does not mention permissions or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the action, and includes only necessary information. The Args list is minimal and redundant but not harmful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter deletion tool, the description covers the essential purpose and the one argument. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. No context is missing for the tool's intended use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides a brief explanation: 'attachment_id: attachment ID.' This adds little beyond the parameter name itself, but given the simple integer ID, it is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Permanently delete an attachment.' It identifies the resource (attachment) and the action (delete), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_attachment or update_attachment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for deletion but does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as update_attachment or get_attachment. It lacks 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, so usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the tool lists roles and includes IDs, which implies a read-only operation. It does not mention pagination, ordering, authentication, or the full return structure, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is adequate yet not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, scope, and key output detail ('with their IDs').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It identifies what is listed, the scope ('instance's'), and the key output detail (IDs), leaving no significant gaps for simple usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters in the schema, and the description correctly omits parameter details. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately adds no unnecessary param information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('the instance's roles') and adds output detail ('with their IDs'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling list tools by scope and from get_role by plural vs singular.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by saying 'List the instance's roles', making it clear this is for fetching all roles at the instance level. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct the agent to get_role for a single role, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the logging action and describes parameters, but does not mention that this creates a new time entry, any side effects like updating project totals, permission requirements, or what the response will contain. For a write operation, this level of transparency 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description begins with a one-sentence purpose and follows with a clear, bullet-like list of parameter explanations. Every line provides useful information without redundancy, making it both concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description thoroughly covers all parameters, their constraints, and references helpful sibling tools. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., existing project/issue) and validation rules, but the parameter clarity and external references make it nearly complete for a create operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining parameters. It does so comprehensively: hours with an example, date format, mutual exclusivity of issue_id and project_identifier, activity_id lookup via list_time_entry_activities, and comment purpose. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Log time spent' with a specific verb and resource, and notes it can be tied to either an issue or a project. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_time_entries, update_time_entry, and delete_time_entry, which represent other operations on time entries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear context on when to use the tool: to log hours worked against an issue or project. It also gives a key constraint (use issue_id OR project_identifier, not both) and directs users to list_time_entry_activities for valid activity IDs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as update_time_entry for modifying existing entries, so exclusions are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses version-dependent behavior (404 on older Redmine) and the 'empty = leave alone' semantics, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or success response. The output schema partially covers return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a version note, and a clear argument list. Every element earns its place with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple update tool, the description covers purpose, version constraints, and parameter semantics. It lacks explicit error handling beyond 404 and permission notes, but the output schema handles return values, making it sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates thoroughly by explaining each parameter's purpose and the special 'empty = leave alone' behavior. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update a published news item,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_news and delete_news through the explicit 'update' action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for updating existing news items but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The version note provides context but not usage boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation via 'Create' and explains the functional purpose of groups, but it does not state side effects, required permissions, uniqueness constraints, or what happens if invalid user_ids are passed. This is a moderate disclosure, enough to infer basic behavior but lacking depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and presents the Args in a clean list. Every sentence earns its place: the conceptual explanation adds value, and the parameter descriptions are direct. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create tool with two parameters and an output schema, this description is fairly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, the value of groups, and the meaning of each parameter. It does not discuss return values (though an output schema exists) or potential error conditions, but these are not critical for a create operation of this simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter details. The Args section explains 'name: group name' and 'user_ids: initial members' IDs (optional), which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. The explanation is helpful, though 'name: group name' is somewhat tautological; the user_ids description is more informative.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Create a user group', a specific verb+resource pair that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_groups, update_group, and delete_group. It also adds conceptual context by explaining that a group grants permissions to multiple people at once, reinforcing its unique role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to create a group that can then be added as a project member, with members inheriting roles. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like add_user_to_group, but the context is sufficient for a simple create operation. No positional guidance is given, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the news is visible to all project members, triggers email notifications according to instance configuration, and is 'not a silent draft.' This gives valuable insight into side effects, though it does not address permission requirements or reversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a one-sentence purpose, a short behavioral note, and a clean bulleted list of arguments. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core behavior (visibility, notifications), all parameters, and the distinction from a draft. It does not mention prerequisites like project existence, but this is likely implicit and does not heavily detract from completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the Args section is the only source of parameter meaning. It provides one-line explanations for all four parameters, but some are tautological (e.g., 'project identifier' for project_identifier, 'news title' for title). It adds meaningful distinction for 'summary line shown in the listing' and 'news body' vs 'summary,' but overall the enrichment is modest.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Publish a news item in a project,' which uses a specific verb ('publish') and resource ('news item'). This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_news, get_news_item, update_news, and delete_news, establishing it as the creation/publishing operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by explaining that news is visible to all project members and triggers email notifications, implying this is for published announcements rather than drafts. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation and 'full text and comments' indicates what is returned, but it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or any side effects. This is adequate for a read tool but lacks additional behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. Each sentence contributes either to understanding what the tool does or how to supply the required argument.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and argument. It could mention potential caveats like not found errors, but the output schema handles return structure, so this is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains news_id as 'news item ID' and tells the user to get it via list_news, adding meaning beyond the bare schema type. This sufficiently covers the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('a news item's full text and comments'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like list_news, create_news, update_news, and delete_news. It states exactly what the tool retrieves.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises using list_news to obtain the news_id, which gives context for when to use this tool versus list_news. It does not explicitly exclude other use cases, but the instruction is clear enough for a simple getter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It implies a read-only operation ('Show') and adds useful diagnostic context about permission details, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-mutating, what authentication/permissions are required, or how errors like an invalid role_id are handled.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: it leads with the primary purpose, then the diagnostic use case, and finally the parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one required parameter) and has an output schema, so return values are already defined. The description covers purpose, use case, and parameter sourcing. However, the absence of annotations and any mention of access requirements or error conditions leaves a small gap in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides the parameter name and integer type, but the description adds key guidance: 'role_id: role ID (use list_roles).' This explains the meaning of the parameter and how to obtain a valid value, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'shows a role's details, including the full list of granted permissions,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_roles or get_group by focusing on detailed role information and permissions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear use case: 'Useful for understanding why an operation is being refused, before trying again.' This provides context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does state that the tool lists API-visible custom fields, provides what each entry contains, and requires an administrator API key. However, it doesn't explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor does it mention pagination or rate limits. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description adds some but not extensive 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence contributes: main function, entry contents, usage context, and admin requirement. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is listed, what each entry contains, how it is used (create_issue/update_issue), and the admin requirement. It might mention if there are any limits or ordering, but given the simplicity and output schema, it is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about input syntax. The schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by explaining the output's purpose (IDs used in create_issue/update_issue), which helps the agent understand why the tool exists even with no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'custom fields visible through the API,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_trackers or list_statuses_and_priorities. It also states what each entry contains and why the tool is needed (for create_issue/update_issue), further clarifying its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states that the results are needed to fill in the 'custom_fields' parameter in create_issue and update_issue, which tells the agent when to call this tool (before creating/updating issues). It also indicates a prerequisite (administrator privileges) but doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use it or alternatives, so it's clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does reveal that the list exists even when the Documents module is disabled, which is a useful edge-case behavior. But it provides no information on authentication, read-only guarantees, or other side effects, leaving some burden unaddressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first front-loads the primary action and output, the second adds a relevant caveat. No extraneous words, fully earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with no parameters and an output schema present, the description provides the essential context: what is listed, the IDs returned, and module-dependency caveat. It sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and edge case without needing to explain return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List the instance's document categories, with their IDs' – a specific verb, resource, and output scope. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like list_project_categories by explicitly mentioning document categories and the Documents module.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes that categories 'belong to the Documents module' and explains when the list 'has no practical use' if the module is disabled. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like list_project_categories, leaving comparative guidance implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical requirement for administrator privileges, which is a significant behavioral trait that will affect invocation success. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, but this is not explicitly stated; however, for a simple list tool, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys both purpose and access requirements without any wasted words. It is concise and well-structured, earning a top score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no nested objects, output schema provided), the description is sufficiently complete. It states what the tool does and the access requirement. The presence of an output schema means return values do not need to be described, and no other context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds useful context by specifying that the listing is at the instance level, clarifying the scope, though it does not need to explain parameter syntax since there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'list' and identifies the resource as 'user groups of the instance,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_group (which retrieves a single group) or create_group (which creates one). The scope is explicit, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states a key prerequisite (administrator privileges) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_group or create_group. The usage context is implied by the verb 'list' and the instance-wide scope, but no direct exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey safety and behavior. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'available on this instance' clarifies the scope. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified or describe any response characteristics, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the verb, wasting no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the necessary context. It states the resource types and scope, which is complete for this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the input schema is trivially covered, and the description need not elaborate on parameter semantics. The baseline score of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and explicitly names the resources 'issue statuses and priority levels' plus the scope 'on this instance.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_trackers and list_custom_fields, which target different data types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for discovering available statuses and priorities on the current instance, which is appropriate for validation or display purposes. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention any alternative tools. For a simple zero-parameter listing tool, this context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description bears the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: empty fields are ignored ('empty = leave alone'), indicating a partial update. It also ties the operation to the API-key owner. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., email verification, token invalidation) or error behavior, leaving the agent to assume a typical update.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a concise parameter list. Each sentence earns its place, and the 'Args' formatting makes the parameter semantics scannable. No redundant or filler text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple self-service update tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and update mode. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this instead of update_user, and it does not mention side effects, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero descriptions for the three parameters. The description fully compensates by documenting each parameter in the Args section, including the critical semantic that an empty string means 'leave alone.' This goes beyond simply restating names by providing essential usage detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Update the account of the user that owns the API key.' This is a specific verb (Update) and resource (account of the API-key owner), and it inherently distinguishes from sibling tools like update_user by scoping to the current user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool — it updates the account of the API key owner. It also explains the partial-update behavior with 'empty = leave alone.' However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like update_user or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
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 discloses a critical behavioral trait: the tool reads current content and rewrites it together with the attachment, avoiding data loss. It also notes that the file path is resolved on the server machine, which is important for the agent to understand parameter semantics. This is strong transparency for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first line states the purpose, followed by a concise but crucial note about page text preservation, and then a clean Arg list. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the inclusion of the 'Args:' block is slightly redundant with the schema, but it adds parameter-level explanations that the schema lacks.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, important behavior), the description provides sufficient context for correct selection and invocation. The output schema is present, so return values need not be detailed. The description explains the critical 'read-rewrite' behavior and parameter semantics, making it complete enough for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each argument: project_identifier, title, file_path as a server-side full path, comment as an edit history note, and file_name with an explicit default behavior ('empty = use the file's own name'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Attach a file to an existing wiki page.' It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like attach_file_to_issue, which targets issues rather than wiki pages. The purpose is immediately understandable and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains a key usage consideration: the tool preserves existing page text by reading and rewriting it alongside the attachment, because Redmine's endpoint replaces the whole page. This indicates when and why the tool behaves as it does, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. It gives enough context for an agent to know this is the correct tool for attaching files to wiki pages.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read', indicating a non-mutating operation, and adds useful behavioral details: title is case-sensitive and version=0 means most recent. It does not mention error handling or permissions, but for a simple read operation this is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: a one-line purpose followed by a clean Args list. No wasted words, and the format is easy to scan. It includes only essential behavioral notes (case-sensitivity, version semantics) that add value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, 2 required, read-only), the description covers the key aspects: what it returns (page content), how to target a page, and optional version. An output schema exists, so return details need not be in the description. Minor omissions like potential errors or page-not-found behavior are acceptable for a read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds vital meaning. It explains all three parameters: project_identifier (though brief), title (with example and case-sensitivity note), and version (with '0 = most recent'). This goes beyond the schema's type-only definitions and helps the agent use the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Read the content of a specific wiki page' clearly states the verb (read) and resource (specific wiki page), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_wiki_pages (list) and create_or_update_wiki_page (write). It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use it to retrieve the content of a specific wiki page. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or mention exclusions, but the read-only purpose and target are obvious from the description and name. There is no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses partial-update behavior, 'leave alone' sentinels, that description replaces entirely, notes appending to history, and the inability to clear fields. This is comprehensive for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description opens with a clear one-sentence purpose, then systematically lists all 16 parameters with sentinel conventions. It is long but every part is informative, and the 'Leave alone' sentinels summary is a useful close. Slightly verbose but appropriately sized for the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 16 parameters and no annotations, the description covers all parameter semantics, sentinel behavior, and limitations. An output schema exists for return values, so the description is sufficient for invocation. Minor gaps like error handling or permissions are not addressed but are not essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter, its sentinel value, and providing an example for custom_fields. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing issue. Only changes the fields that are provided.' This specifies the action (update), resource (issue), and distinguishes it from create_issue, bulk_update_issues, and delete_issue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about partial updates and explicitly notes 'There is no way to clear a field through this tool — to blank out a date or remove an assignee, use the Redmine web UI.' However, it does not mention any sibling tools as alternatives, such as bulk_update_issues for multi-issue updates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral details: the underlying HTTP method, text formatting dependency on instance config, parent_page semantics (empty leaves current nesting on update, roots on new pages), and comment visibility in history. However, it does not mention permissions or error cases, which would add further transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement, a brief implementation note, and a well-organized Args list. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy, making it both concise and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 params, write operation) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, all parameters, and key behaviors like formatting and nesting. It lacks a few edge-case details (e.g., overwrite behavior, permissions), but overall it is sufficiently complete for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by providing an Args list that explains every parameter (project_identifier, title, text, comment, parent_page), including nuances like parent_page behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Create a new wiki page, or update an existing one,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like list_wiki_pages, get_wiki_page, and delete_wiki_page by indicating it handles both creation and update operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clarifies that the same PUT endpoint handles both create and update, implying it is the go-to tool for upserting wiki pages. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes it clear when to use this tool. A minor deduction for lack of explicit comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key behavioral side effect: issues using the category are left without one unless reassigned to another category. This goes beyond the schema and annotations (none provided), adding important context about the consequences of deletion. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but the main behavioral trait is covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-organized: opening with the purpose, then the behavioral note, and a clearly formatted args section. Every sentence provides value, and there is no redundancy or clutter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deletion tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential contextual details: what happens to issues using the category and the meaning of both parameters. Minor gaps such as authorization requirements exist, but the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema make the description sufficiently complete for an AI agent to select and use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite having 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: category_id identifies the category to delete, and reassign_to_id specifies a replacement category to receive orphaned issues, with 0 meaning none. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an issue category.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_project_categories, create_project_category, and update_project_category, and the behavior is described.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when an issue category needs to be deleted, with optional reassignment of orphaned issues. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident and the side effects are explained. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the source of identity ('API key configured on this server') and that it returns admin status, which are important behavioral traits. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only, the verb 'Return' strongly implies no side effects, and an output schema covers return value details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that state the purpose and a key use case without any redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the resource returned, the authentication context, and a typical use case. Nothing important is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the schema fully covers everything. The description correctly indicates no inputs are needed, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('the user that owns the API key configured on this server'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling 'get_user' which likely fetches a user by ID. The scope is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a clear use case: 'confirming which identity issues are being created under, and whether that user is an administrator.' This implies it is for the current user rather than fetching arbitrary users, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' indicates a read-only operation, and the examples clarify the type of data returned. It doesn't elaborate on ordering or pagination, but for a simple zero-parameter list, this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: a single clear sentence followed by a short example list. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a simple zero-parameter enumeration and an output schema exists, the description is fully complete. It provides the purpose and example values, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to describe. Per baseline, a tool with no parameters gets a 4, and the description appropriately adds no irrelevant parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists activity types for logging time, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_time_entries or log_time. The example values add clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this should be used to discover available activity types before logging time, which is clear context. It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools, but it distinguishes itself through the phrase 'for logging time.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does so reasonably well. It explicitly notes the 'empty = leave alone' semantics for file_name and description, and warns that older Redmine versions return 404. It stops short of discussing permissions, response format, or side effects, but the disclosed traits are meaningful and non-obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured. The first sentence states the core action, the second provides a compatibility caveat, and the Args block lists parameters clearly. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or vague language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers all parameters, explains the non-obvious empty-string behavior, and notes a version-specific error case. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool and understand when it will fail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section explains the purpose of each parameter, with the 'empty = leave alone' clarifications for file_name and description adding significant semantic value beyond the raw schema. attachment_id receives only minimal explanation, but it is required and self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states an action ('Rename an attachment or change its description') on a specific resource ('attachment'), and adds a distinctive qualifier ('without re-uploading it') that differentiates it from delete-and-recreate workflows. It stands apart from sibling tools like get_attachment and delete_attachment by focusing on the update operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'without re-uploading it' implicitly signals when to choose this tool over the alternative of deleting and re-attaching a file. It gives clear context for the intended use case, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide negative exclusions, which keeps it a step below a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly explains the replacement semantics ('any role not in it is removed') and clarifies a common pitfall (membership_id vs user ID). While it doesn't mention permissions or error conditions, it covers the most critical behavioral aspect—complete replacement—making it reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: a concise one-line summary, a clear explanation of the replacement behavior, and a simple Args list. Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description effectively covers the core semantics and parameter nuances for a two-parameter update tool. The output schema (though not shown) likely documents return values, so the description need not do so. It doesn't explicitly state edge cases like an empty role_ids list, but that is logically implied by 'complete list'. Overall, it is complete enough for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions, but the description compensates thoroughly. It explains that membership_id is the 'membership_id' field from list_project_members (not the user's ID) and that role_ids is the new complete list of role IDs, not an incremental update. This adds significant semantic value beyond the raw schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Replace a member's roles.' The verb 'replace' and resource 'member's roles' are specific and unambiguous. It distinctively differentiates from sibling tools like add_project_member and remove_project_member, which handle adding/removing memberships entirely.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: this tool is for setting the complete list of roles for a member, explicitly noting that the list replaces existing roles. It implies the appropriate usage scenario (when you want to define the exact role set) without explicitly naming alternatives, but the context is sufficient to guide tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states the action (create) and includes useful behavioral details such as 'anything not provided is left to the project's defaults.' It does not mention permissions, side effects, or failure modes, but the core behavior and default-handling behavior are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a one-line purpose followed by a clear bulleted args list. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the format is easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 14 parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high complexity (14 parameters) and absence of annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameter semantics, optional behavior, defaults, and points to sibling tools for enumeration needs. The output schema exists, so return value details are not required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter in detail, including types, examples, and how to discover valid values (e.g., 'tracker_id: tracker ID (varies per instance; use list_trackers)'). This is exemplary parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Create a new issue in Redmine,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly defines the tool's function. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_issue, delete_issue, and list_issues by focusing solely on creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by stating that this tool creates a new issue and that every field besides project and subject is optional. It also directs users to helper tools (list_trackers, list_statuses_and_priorities, etc.) for valid IDs, which gives practical usage guidance, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_issue.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Show' and specifies the exact output fields. It also explains where the parameter originates. It doesn't mention error handling or permissions, but for a simple retrieval that's acceptable; no contradictions with annotations (none exist).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences plus an Args block, with the primary purpose stated first and the parameter explanation directly after. No fluff; every sentence conveys necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-parameter nature, the presence of an output schema, and clear linkage to get_issue for finding the ID, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly. Sibling tools are differentiated, and the return fields are listed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: it defines attachment_id as the ID shown in get_issue's attachments list, giving the agent actionable knowledge on how to obtain the value. This goes beyond the schema's bare type/title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Show' and identifies the resource 'attachment', then enumerates the returned fields (name, size, type, author, download URL). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like update_attachment and delete_attachment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It says the attachment_id is shown in get_issue's attachments list, which provides clear context for when to use this tool (after retrieving the issue). However, it doesn't explicitly exclude the alternate attachment tools or state conditions for non-use, so a 4 rather than 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Return') and explains what data is included, plus the performance implication of include_history. It does not mention permissions or error cases, but for a read operation this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by a list of included details, then a clean Args block. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the scope, parameter semantics, and performance guidance. It is complete enough for an agent to know what the tool returns and how to adjust the optional parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters. include_history gets extra semantic context ('also fetch the comments and change log', 'Turn this off for long issues'), which is valuable for correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Return every detail of an issue.' It specifies the resource (issue) and the action (get), and lists the included components (description, attachments, relations, watchers, subtasks), distinguishing it from list_issues and other sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear guidance on when to use the include_history parameter, noting it can be turned off for long issues when only current values matter. It does not explicitly compare to alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough to infer when to use get_issue over list_issues or update_issue.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the admin requirement and the meaning of status values (active, pending, locked). It does not describe response structure or potential limitations, but the presence of an output schema partially mitigates that, and the behavior is straightforward for a list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a note on privileges, and a formatted argument list. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three simple parameters (all described), an output schema to cover return values, and no side effects (read-only list), the description covers all necessary context. The admin prerequisite is stated, making the tool's applicability clear in the broader Redmine API context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: status values, name partial matching behavior, and limit as a cap on the result count. This goes well beyond the bare schema definitions, adding critical meaning for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The opening line 'List Redmine users' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_groups or list_trackers. It also unambiguously states the tool's scope without restating the tool name tautologically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly notes 'Requires administrator privileges,' which is a clear prerequisite and usage constraint. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., get_user for single-user lookup), but the context is sufficiently clear for selecting this tool for bulk user listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the user loses access while their created content (issues, comments, time entries) remains, which is key side-effect information. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but the main consequence is well covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the action. The behavioral note and parameter clarification are both essential and add value without redundancy. No extra fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter removal tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the exact parameter source, and the key behavioral outcome. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only lists membership_id as an integer without any description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining it is the 'membership_id' field from list_project_members and adding a critical warning against using the user's ID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Remove a member from a project,' using a specific verb and resource that clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_project_members, add_project_member, and update_project_member. It also distinguishes from remove_user_from_group by explicitly targeting project membership.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it removes a member from a project and clarifies that membership_id should come from list_project_members, not the user's ID. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the operation is straightforward and the parameter guidance is helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the alpha status, version-dependent availability, and the meaning of a 404, which are valuable behavioral details beyond the basic 'edit' operation. It does not cover permissions or reversibility, but the output schema exists so return value details are not required. The addition of the journal ID pitfall further enhances transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is tightly written: a one-sentence purpose, a clarification sentence, an alpha warning, and a clean Args block. Every sentence adds necessary context, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 scalar parameters, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter meanings, a common pitfall, and a version caveat. It also references get_issue for finding the journal ID, making it self-sufficient for a typical agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does 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 does so with an explicit Args section explaining both parameters: journal_id is 'ID of the history entry (journal)' and text is 'new text for the comment.' It also clarifies the journal_id vs issue ID distinction, adding real semantic value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Edit the text of a comment already posted to an issue's history.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_issue or get_issue, and the rest of the description reinforces the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on how to use the tool correctly by explaining that the journal ID is the 'id' field in 'journals' visible via get_issue, and explicitly warns not to confuse it with the issue ID. It also gives a practical hint about 404 responses for older versions. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
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 explains the tool's behavior thoroughly: archived projects become read-only, disappear from listings, lose nothing, and are reversible. It also discloses the consequences of deletion (irreversible, takes issues/time entries/wiki content), adding rich context beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized into concise paragraphs: purpose, behavioral notes, and arguments. Every sentence earns its place—the deletion contrast is relevant and useful, while the argument list is compact and readable. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only two parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the operation does (archive/unarchive), side effects (read-only, hidden, reversible), and when not to use it (deletion). No additional behavioral details are necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter descriptions are minimal: 'project_identifier' is only restated as 'project identifier,' adding no real meaning beyond the schema. However, 'archive' is clearly explained as 'True archives, False unarchives,' which compensates for the schema's default-only documentation. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially fills the gap but could have provided more detail on the identifier format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Archive or unarchive a project,' using a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with deletion, which is intentionally not exposed by this server, and by noting it is the reversible alternative to deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit guidance: use this tool to archive/unarchive reversibly, while deletion is a web UI operation. It clarifies that this server deliberately does not expose deletion, setting clear boundaries and preventing misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-obvious behavioral trait that IDs vary per instance, which is critical for correct usage. It implies a safe read operation but does not explicitly mention side-effect-free behavior or potential edge cases; however, for a simple list tool this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a single, high-value usage note. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and the key non-obvious detail (instance-specific IDs). It explains when to use it and why, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are no parameters to describe; the schema coverage is vacuously complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'trackers (issue types)', and notes the output includes IDs. It distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools by specifying the exact resource, and the context of use before create_issue makes its role unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to use this tool before create_issue and warns against assuming default IDs. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and practical exclusion (don't assume defaults), even without naming alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key destructive behavior: 'user_ids: new, COMPLETE list of members — anyone not in it is removed from the group.' It also clarifies the 'name' field's behavior ('empty = leave alone'). However, it does not explicitly state what happens if user_ids is omitted or null, leaving a slight ambiguity about whether membership is left unchanged.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a one-line summary followed by a clean args list. Each line carries information—nothing is redundant. It is front-loaded with the purpose and structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context (full replacement semantics, name handling) and points to an alternative. It could mention prerequisites or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete. The absence of annotation forces the description to do more, and it delivers on the most critical aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the parameters. It does this thoroughly: group_id is identified as the group ID, name is described with its default behavior, and user_ids is explained as a complete replacement list with the removal consequence. This adds critical meaning beyond the raw schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Update a group,' a specific verb+resource combination that clearly states the tool's function. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly referencing add_user_to_group for the specific case of adding a single member without affecting others.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'To add one person without touching the rest, use add_user_to_group.' This tells the agent when to prefer an alternative tool, and implicitly when to use this tool (when replacing the full membership list is acceptable).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses non-abort behavior, per-pair error reporting, re-run safety, and the Redmine 422 duplicate handling, plus scoping delay to specific relation types.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is organized logically: purpose, usage, arguments, and behavior. Each sentence adds value, and the front-loaded purpose makes it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description provides exhaustive context for a batch operation with side effects, covering error handling, idempotency, and parameter details. The output schema exists and does not need return-value explanation, but behavior is fully disclosed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all three parameters: issue_ids with an example, relation_type with a reference to create_issue_relation and default, and delay with applicable relation types. 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Chain a list of issues in sequence') and the resource (issues), making the tool's purpose immediate. It also distinguishes itself from sibling create_issue_relation by emphasizing batch chaining without per-pair form interactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly notes usefulness for enforcing execution order of multiple tasks and references create_issue_relation for relation_type, providing clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the intended scenario is well implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the auth requirement, the password generation/emailing behavior, the deliberate exclusion of a password parameter, and the consequence of disabling send_information. This goes beyond basic expectations and prevents misuse.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence carries weight. The Args list is clear and scannable, with no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential behavioral aspects: prerequisites, password lifecycle, parameter semantics, and fallback instructions. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and anticipate the outcome.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does 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 fully does: each parameter is explained with functional meaning (e.g., email doubles as credential delivery, admin grants privileges, send_information controls login viability). This adds substantial value over the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with "Create a user," a specific verb-resource pair that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_group or create_issue by focusing on user creation and adding unique context about password handling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: requires administrator privileges, explains that password is generated and emailed, and gives an alternative (web UI) for manual password setting. It doesn't explicitly contrast with other user-related tools (e.g., update_user), but the guidance is sufficient for correct use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
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 and does so thoroughly. It reveals the 100-item cap, query_id overriding other filters, date inclusivity semantics, partial-match behavior, special status values, and the return of the total matching issue count to tell if pagination is needed. There is no annotation contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is long because there are 17 parameters, but it is well-structured with a one-line purpose followed by an Args list and a Returns note. Every sentence adds semantic value and there is no fluff or repetition, making it 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.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count, lack of annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameter semantics, API limitations, filter interactions, pagination behavior, and return count information, giving an agent everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description's Args section is the only source of parameter meaning. Every one of the 17 parameters is defined with syntax and examples, including custom_fields map format, sort_by field/direction examples, and the meaning of empty project_identifier and status '*'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('List Redmine issues'), and the description enumerates all filtering dimensions (project, status, tracker, category, version, assignee, author, parent issue, subject, dates, custom fields, sorting, query, pagination). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling issue tools like get_issue, create_issue, and bulk_update_issues.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context on how to use filters, including notes that Redmine caps limit at 100, query_id causes other filters to be ignored, and offset+limit enable pagination. It also references list_trackers, list_project_categories, list_project_versions, and list_saved_queries for filling filter parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_issue or bulk_update_issues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a generic 'update' by revealing that admin privileges are required, that locking is reversible, that the server does not expose user deletion, and by defining the exact semantics of status and admin values. This is rich, actionable context for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a short contextual note about locking vs deletion, and a cleanly formatted Args list. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the structure allows quick scanning. It is appropriately sized for a 7-parameter admin tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, 1 required, no enums) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides all necessary context: parameter semantics, behavioral nuances (locking, no deletion), and privilege requirements. The agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without needing to consult external docs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does 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 does so with a detailed Args list that explains every parameter: user_id, login, firstname, lastname, email, status, and admin, including sentinel values like 'empty = leave alone' and numeric codes for status/admin. This fully covers the parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Update a user', a specific verb+resource pair that clearly identifies the tool's function. It also explains locking as a reversible alternative to deletion, which distinguishes it from deletion-related operations and clarifies its role within user management.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states 'Requires administrator privileges', establishing a prerequisite and implying use by admins. It also explains that locking is the server's supported way to remove access and that real deletion is only a web UI operation, providing clear when-not guidance. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool (e.g., 'use update_my_account for self-service'), so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
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 explains the side effect of closing a version ('removes it from the choices offered to new issues, without affecting the ones that already reference it'), the allowed status values, and the partial-update behavior. This goes beyond a simple statement of mutation and gives important 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by a concise, structured Args list. Each line is succinct and informative, with no wasted words. The format is easy to parse and understand, making it ideal for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (so return values are not needed) and the tool has five parameters, the description covers all relevant aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, and behavioral side effects. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, including edge cases like closing a version.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions for any properties (0% coverage), so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains each parameter in detail: version_id tells how to obtain it, name/description/due_date define the empty-as-leave-alone behavior, and status specifies the three allowed values and their consequence. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Update an existing version', which clearly states the verb (update), resource (version), and scope (existing). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_project_version and delete_version. The additional 'Only changes the fields that are provided' clarifies the update semantics, leaving no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it updates an existing version and clarifies that empty fields mean 'leave alone', which is a key usage rule. It also references 'use list_project_versions' to obtain the version_id. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for create/delete operations, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses the irreversibility and collateral damage: 'takes the issue's subtasks, time entries, and history with it' and 'Redmine has no trash can.' This is a clear and high-value behavioral warning for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the purpose and a prominent WARNING. Each sentence adds crucial context (irreversibility, side effects, alternative) with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete operation with one parameter, the description covers essential side effects and provides an explicit alternative, making it complete for decision-making. Since an output schema exists, no return value explanation is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter issue_id is described as 'ID of the issue to delete,' which clarifies that it refers to the issue identifier. While not deeply detailed, it provides sufficient meaning for a simple integer ID and is easy to understand.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Permanently delete an issue,' which is a specific verb (delete) and resource (issue). It distinguishes itself from other issue tools by recommending a closed status as an alternative, aligning with sibling tools like update_issue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly warns against using for merely hiding an issue: 'Prefer moving to a closed status (e.g. Cancelled) when the goal is only to take it off the board.' This provides clear when-to-use (permanent deletion) and when-not-to-use (removal from board) guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool does not abort on the first error, tries every issue, reports individual results, and uses specific 'leave alone' sentinels for all fields, which is substantial 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Although long, the description is well-structured and every part adds value: plain-language summary, use cases, error behavior, sentinel disclosure, and parameter documentation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a clean Args list.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, use cases, behavioral nuances, error handling, sentinel conventions, and parameter semantics, leaving no significant gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes a full Args section explaining every parameter, including sentinel values (0, -1, empty string) and formats like YYYY-MM-DD and custom_fields map structure. Since the schema has no property descriptions, this fully compensates and adds clear meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Apply the same change to several issues at once,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and batch scope. It also distinguishes itself from creation and implies comparison to update_issue by referencing its sentinel conventions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives concrete scenarios (moving cards to a new status, fixing categories, assigning versions) and explicitly explains when batching is not useful (creation). It also indirectly points to update_issue as the single-issue alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the important side effect that precedes/follows relationships trigger Redmine to reschedule the following issue, pushing its start date forward. This is a significant, non-obvious behavior that is clearly disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured, with an Args list and a Warning section. Every sentence provides useful information, with no filler. The warning is placed prominently and adds critical context without bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description covers the core behavior, all parameter meanings, and the critical edge case of date-driven rescheduling. The output schema handles return value documentation, so nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by listing every parameter with meaningful semantics: issue_id as source, target_issue_id as target, relation_type with all allowed values and the delay parameter explained as gap in days and restricted to precedes/follows. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with a clear, specific statement: 'Create a relation between two issues.' This identifies the action and resource, and the sibling tools (list_issue_relations, delete_issue_relation) make it obvious this is the create operation, distinguishing it from related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit usage guidance: warns that 'precedes' and 'follows' are date-driven and cause rescheduling, and explicitly recommends using 'relates' when only linking without affecting dates. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use direction for the relation_type parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key side-effect (issues are left without a target version) and implicitly conveys that deletion removes historical link via the alternative recommendation. This goes beyond a bare delete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences plus an Args line. Every sentence adds value: action, consequence, alternative, and parameter definition. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter delete tool with an output schema, this description covers the necessary context: what it does, its side-effect, and how to avoid losing historical links. No major gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter version_id is explicitly described as 'ID of the version to delete,' providing meaning beyond the schema's type/title. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delete a version') and clarifies the main effect on referenced issues. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool update_version by explaining the alternative approach.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance on when not to use delete: 'To take a version out of circulation without losing the historical link, prefer update_version with status=closed.' This clearly signals the alternative and the trade-off between deletion and preserving history.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alsimoes/mcp-redmine-rest'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server