Mural MCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: workspace, room, mural, and specific widget types (sticky note, shape, title, textbox, arrow, area, comment). The list/get/create/update/delete operations are clearly separated, and even similarly named tools like get_mural_widgets vs get_mural_widget are unambiguous.
Naming Consistency4/5
The overall pattern is consistent verb_noun (list_* get_* create_* update_* delete_*). Minor deviations include plural create_sticky_notes/create_shapes vs singular create_arrow/create_area, and generic delete_widget vs delete_mural, but these are readable and predictable.
Tool Count3/5
With 23 tools, the set is on the heavy side but appropriate for the domain, covering mural CRUD plus multiple widget types. It feels slightly bloated because widget creation/update could potentially be consolidated, but each tool serves a distinct purpose.
Completeness4/5
The core lifecycle for murals and widgets is well covered: list/get/create/update/delete for murals, and get/create/update/delete for widgets. Missing workspace/room creation and a few niche widget operations are minor gaps that agents can work around.
Average 3.9/5 across 23 of 23 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or any additional constraints such as permissions or error conditions. It is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief, but it duplicates parameter information already present in the schema with the 'Args:' block. This redundancy is unnecessary, though the text is not bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient to explain the basic purpose. However, it lacks any mention of how this tool relates to sibling tools or when it should be selected, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema includes only titles and types for mural_id and widget_id. The description repeats 'The mural ID' and 'The widget ID', which adds no meaning beyond the schema field names. The coverage gap is not compensated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a single widget is fetched by its ID. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_mural_widgets (which lists widgets) by emphasizing 'single' and 'by its ID'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_mural_widgets or get_mural. The context is implicit: use when you have a widget ID, but no exclusions or alternate tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds a format hint for background_color ('hex with alpha') and does not explain whether the update is partial or full, whether null clears a field, or any side effects, permissions, or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: one purpose sentence and three argument lines. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important verb+resource appears first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context for a mutation tool: update semantics (partial vs full), behavior when title/background_color are null, and validation requirements. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'New' to title and background_color, indicating replacement values, and specifies hex with alpha for background_color. However, mural_id's 'The mural ID' is tautological and adds no meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Update a mural's properties.' This distinguishes it from sibling update_* tools that target widgets (sticky notes, shapes, etc.), though it doesn't explicitly list which properties beyond the args.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or dependencies. The sibling tool list is present but the description does not direct the agent toward or away from it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It simply states 'Delete a mural' without noting that deletion is likely permanent, that it may cascade to child widgets, or that it may require special permissions. This is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using just two sentences. It front-loads the action and includes only the essential parameter explanation. No words are wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success status, error codes) or describe side effects such as cascading deletion of widgets. This is a destructive operation, and the description provides no additional context beyond the act of deleting.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description only adds 'mural_id: The mural ID to delete.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose but does not add format, source, or constraints beyond what the schema's type already implies. It is minimal but not worthless.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Delete a mural' with a clear verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mural, update_mural, and create_mural, which share the same resource but different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, permissions, or situations where deletion might be inappropriate (e.g., if the mural is shared or contains important data).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a destructive action but does not state whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has cascading effects. The lack of such context for a mutation tool is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence action statement followed by a straightforward Args list. No redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description omits important operational context like permanence, prerequisites, or error conditions. For a simple two-parameter delete, it is minimally sufficient but leaves clear gaps in behavioral understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description adds minimal value: 'mural_id: The mural ID' is tautological, and 'widget_id: The widget ID to delete' only slightly clarifies intent. No details on formats, sources, or validation are provided, failing to compensate for the sparse schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the target resource ('widget from a mural by its ID'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_mural and get_mural_widget. The verb+resource+scope structure is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It simply describes what the tool does without explaining scenarios for use or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral details, but it only lists updatable fields. It does not explain merge semantics, whether unspecified fields are reset, permissions required, or error behavior. The lack of side-effect or edge-case disclosure makes it less transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose sentence. The parameter list is dense but readable. No unnecessary prose, though the long single line for properties fields could be better structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core parameters and many supported fields, but lacks details on nested style objects, valid value ranges, and error scenarios. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but input semantics are incompletely documented for a tool with a complex properties object.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description is needed. It explains mural_id and widget_id minimally, and lists many supported fields for the properties object. However, field types and detailed semantics (e.g., units, interaction between text and htmlText) are missing, so it only partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates a sticky note widget on a mural, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_shape and update_text by naming the widget type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_sticky_notes or other update tools. The context is implied by the name and description, but there are no stated exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and lists arguments, omitting side effects, permissions, or return behavior, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a single purpose sentence followed by a structured argument list. No word is wasted, and the information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the parameters adequately and benefits from the output schema, but lacks usage context and behavioral details beyond the basic creation action. It is minimally sufficient for a create operation without annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists all six parameters with brief but meaningful explanations, clarifying coordinate units (px) and the roles of reference_widget_id and parent_id. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though definitions are minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The first sentence 'Create a comment widget on a mural' precisely identifies the action (create) and resource (comment widget), distinguishing it from sibling creation tools like create_sticky_notes or create_titles. The purpose is immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor exclusions or prerequisites. It simply describes the action without context on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists updatable fields and parameters. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., partial vs. full replacement), error behavior, permissions required, or whether the widget must exist. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficient: a one-sentence summary followed by a concise parameter breakdown. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose before the args list. No filler or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately explains all required parameters and the core operation. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, partial update semantics, permissions) and does not reference related tools for obtaining mural_id/widget_id. Given the tool has an output schema and nested objects, the description is minimally viable but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: mural_id, widget_id, and properties with a list of supported fields (x, y, message, referenceWidgetId, parentId). This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Update a comment widget on a mural.' It specifies the resource (comment widget) and the action (update), distinguishing it from sibling tools that update other widget types (e.g., update_sticky_note, update_shape).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that other widget types have dedicated update tools, nor does it give context about prerequisites like needing to first retrieve the mural or widget. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and the verb 'update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the core action (list) and the access restriction, implying read-only behavior but not disclosing pagination behavior, rate limits, or other operational details. The pagination token is mentioned in Args, but the description does not explicitly describe how the tool behaves overall.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a single-purpose opening sentence and a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the main functionality is front-loaded. No redundant or filler content is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks explicit usage guidance and broader behavioral transparency, such as when to use this over sibling tools or how pagination works beyond a one-line note. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description's Args section compensates with brief but meaningful definitions for all three parameters: workspace_id as the ID, limit as max results, and next_token as a pagination token. This adds necessary semantics beyond just the schema types and titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The first sentence clearly states the action (List), the resource (rooms), and the scope (in a workspace accessible to the user). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_workspaces and list_murals_in_room, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for listing rooms within a workspace but does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives such as list_murals_in_room or get_mural. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned, so the usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get details' without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the mural ID is invalid, or any access/authorization requirements. This is a significant gap for a read operation that could benefit from confirming no side effects or data modification.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single clear purpose statement followed by a param explanation. Every sentence is necessary and there is no fluff. The structure is front-loaded with the action, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear purpose) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the essential information: what it returns and the argument format. However, it could be more complete by noting that this is a read-only operation and possibly referencing related tools (e.g., 'use list_murals_in_room to find mural IDs') to improve contextual awareness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no description for 'mural_id' (0% schema coverage), but the description compensates by explaining the exact format ('workspaceId.timestamp') and providing a concrete example. This adds meaningful semantic clarity that enables correct invocation, though it could be slightly more descriptive about what the ID represents in the system.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('get details') and the resource ('a single mural'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_murals_in_room' and 'get_mural_widgets'. The scope ('single mural') is explicit, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when retrieving a specific mural's details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., listing murals first) or mention any exclusions. While the context of sibling tools provides some guidance, the description itself offers no direct comparison or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the operation is to list murals but does not explicitly say it is a read-only operation, nor does it describe pagination behavior (e.g., how next_token is used to fetch more results), ordering, or error conditions. The description is minimal and leaves significant behavioral assumptions to the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded: the first line states the purpose, followed by a clean, structured Args section. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given 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 and all parameters documented, the description is adequate but minimal. It omits usage context (versus get_mural), explicit read-only behavior, and pagination mechanics. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but behavioral details like how next_token works are missing. Overall, it meets the minimum viable bar but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: room_id as 'The room ID (integer)', limit as 'Max results to return', and next_token as 'Pagination token from a previous response'. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states exactly what the tool does: 'List murals in a room.' This uses a specific verb with a resource and scope, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_rooms or get_mural. The name and description align perfectly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives the context ('in a room') but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_mural for a single mural. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references. The intended usage is implied by the name and argument, but not clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it lists supported fields, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether updates are incremental or full replacements, any permissions needed, reversibility, or side effects beyond the generic 'update' action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with a clear purpose line and a parameter breakdown. The list of supported fields is necessary and not verbose, though it is somewhat long. It earns its place by providing critical detail for the 'properties' parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the complex nested properties comprehensively, which is essential for correct invocation. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. However, it lacks some behavioral context (e.g., whether all properties can be updated atomically), preventing a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only minimal parameter definitions (e.g., 'properties' is an object with additionalProperties). The description compensates thoroughly by enumerating all supported fields (x, y, width, height, rotation, text, htmlText, style with nested properties, title, parentId, hidden), adding significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Update a shape widget on a mural,' clearly stating the action (update), the resource (shape widget), and the context (on a mural). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_sticky_note or update_text, which target different widget types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for updating shape widgets but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Since sibling tools exist for other widget types, the context is clear, but no direct comparison or guidance is given.
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. It does disclose parameter behavior, such as the infinite canvas behavior ('grows as you add widgets') and background color format, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, or that this is a mutation beyond the verb 'create.' Some behavioral ambiguity remains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean list of parameters. Every line conveys necessary information without unnecessary prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all parameters and key behavioral traits, making it usable for a create operation. Although it omits usage alternatives and return value details, the output schema exists and the tool complexity is relatively low. It is nearly complete but could be slightly richer with usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description enriches every schema parameter with meaningful details: ranges (3000-60000), defaults (9216/6237), requiredness (room_id), and the semantic interpretation of infinite. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this is essential and highly effective.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Create a new mural in a room,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_murals_in_room or the widget-creation tools (e.g., create_sticky_notes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. It simply states the creation action without discussing trade-offs or prerequisites beyond the required room_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral burden. It discloses a 1000-widget limit, required fields (x, y, shape), htmlText overriding text, and default size. But it does not mention response format, error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Structured with a clear opening sentence, bullet list for widget properties, and args section. Slightly lengthy but every detail serves a purpose; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, description need not explain return values. It covers core behavior, parameters, and key constraints. Missing details like error handling or edge cases, but adequate for a creation tool given schema enrichment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description thoroughly documents both top-level args (mural_id, widgets) and all nested widget properties (x, y, shape, text, htmlText, width, height, style, parentId, tags), adding meaning far beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Create one or more sticky note widgets on a mural (limit 1000)' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_shapes or create_textboxes by focusing on sticky note widgets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. However, the name and description imply use for sticky notes, and sibling context makes the distinction clear. Lacks direct guidance on choosing this tool over create_textboxes or create_shapes.
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. It discloses useful behavioral details like the 1000-widget limit, required x/y coordinates, and default width/height, but doesn't mention authentication, error handling, partial success behavior, or side effects beyond creation. This is moderate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose, then uses structured bullets to detail widget properties. The long shape list is necessary and not padding; every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential parameters, defaults, limits, and style options for a creation tool. An output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. Minor gaps remain, like not explicitly stating that parentId refers to an area widget, but overall this is highly complete for a creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (widgets is just an array of objects with additionalProperties: true), so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly by enumerating every widget property (x, y, shape, text, htmlText, width, height, style, parentId) and listing all valid shape values, significantly exceeding minimal schema info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Create one or more shape widgets on a mural', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_sticky_notes or create_textboxes by focusing on shape widgets, and the shape list reinforces the specific scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need shape widgets) but provides no explicit comparison or exclusions relative to sibling create tools. There is no 'use this instead of X' guidance, so it relies on the reader to infer the distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists updatable fields and does not mention whether updates are partial/full, permissions required, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool, similar to the update_drive example.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear Args list. Every line provides value, and the nested 'properties' field is broken down logically. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main purpose and parameter details. With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. However, it lacks clarification on partial vs. full replacement and the meaning of some fields like 'parentId', leaving minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter, especially 'properties', which enumerates all supported fields including the 'style' sub-object. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema that only has 'additionalProperties: true'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Update a text widget') on a specific resource (mural), and identifies the widget types ('title or textbox'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that update other widget types like sticky notes, shapes, or arrows.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for text/title/textbox widgets and not for others, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Clear context is provided, but no direct 'when not to use' or alternative tool references are given.
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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals important traits: a limit of 1000 widgets, auto-growing width to fit text, support for specific HTML tags, and default values for position and size. This goes well beyond the minimal 'creates widgets' expectation, though it stops short of discussing permissions 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured: a brief overview sentence, a bulleted list of widget properties, and a compact args section. Each bullet adds necessary detail, though the Args section partially repeats schema information. Overall, it's dense but not bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has an output schema, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the maze of nested widget parameters thoroughly. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether 'text' is required within each widget object and doesn't clarify prerequisites like the mural existing. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is minimal (mural_id and widgets array with additionalProperties:true), providing zero semantic coverage. The description fully compensates by detailing every supported field of a widget object, including text formatting, positional defaults, style properties, and parentId. This is essential for the agent to construct valid inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create one or more title widgets on a mural (limit 1000).' This uses a specific verb and resource ('title widgets'), and the mention of the 1000 limit and auto-growing width distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_textboxes or create_sticky_notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_textboxes or create_shapes. The intended usage is implied by the name and widget type, but the description does not explain the difference between a 'title' and a 'textbox', leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses parameter behaviors such as snapping via start_ref_id/end_ref_id and allowed values for arrow_type, but does not mention permissions, prerequisites like an existing mural, or side effects. It provides some behavioral context but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a well-organized docstring with one sentence for the purpose and a bullet-like list of parameters. Every line provides meaningful detail without fluff, and the purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 13 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers all parameters thoroughly, including nested structures. It omits minor context like coordinate system and error handling, but given the output schema exists and parameter semantics are rich, it is mostly complete for a complex creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by defining every parameter with depth: points as array of {x,y} objects with min 2 items, arrow_type enum values, style structure with strokeColor/hex+alpha, and label nested object. This is exemplary parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create an arrow (connector) widget on a mural' with a specific verb and resource, making it distinct from sibling creation tools. The parenthetical 'connector' further clarifies the widget type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose is unambiguous, clearly indicating this tool is for creating an arrow widget. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough given the tool name and sibling create 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It implies partial update via 'fields to update' and provides inline enums for arrowType and tip, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, error conditions, or whether non-specified fields are preserved or reset. This is adequate but leaves gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized given the parameter complexity. It opens with a clear purpose, then uses a structured 'Args' list to document parameters and allowed values. Every element serves a purpose, and the inline enums avoid verbose prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given 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 the essential input semantics thoroughly. It lacks some contextual details like whether certain properties are interdependent (e.g., startRefId/endRefId must reference valid widgets), but overall it is complete enough for a typical update operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by listing all supported fields for the 'properties' object, including nested structures like style and label. It also gives one-line meanings for mural_id and widget_id. This provides complete semantic context beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an arrow (connector) widget on a mural, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling update tools (e.g., update_shape, update_text) by specifying the widget type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear for when to use this tool: when updating arrow widgets. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use update_shape for other shapes'). The specificity of 'arrow (connector)' implies the scope, but explicit guidance would strengthen this.
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond the schema by specifying default values for x, y, width, height, layout, and show_title, and by enumerating allowed values for layout and borderStyle, plus a range for borderWidth. It does not mention permissions or failure modes, but the primary behavior (creation) is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a clean, itemized list of arguments. Each argument is on its own line with concise explanations. There is no repetition or filler, making it well-organized and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 10 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all parameter semantics, defaults, and structured style details. It also clarifies parent_id for nested areas. Since an output schema exists, explaining return values is unnecessary. The description leaves no significant gaps for the tool's creation behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only types and titles with zero description coverage, leaving all semantic meaning to the description. The description fully compensates by explaining the purpose of every parameter (e.g., 'mural_id: The mural ID', 'x: Horizontal position in px'), giving defaults, outlining the style object's fields, and noting parent_id's role for nested areas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Create an area (swimlane/zone) widget on a mural,' which gives a specific verb, a clear resource, and an explicit widget type. This distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_sticky_notes and create_shapes, which target different widget types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied rather than explicit: the tool creates area widgets, and the parameter list supports that. However, there is no direct comparison to alternatives or guidance on when not to use it, such as 'use create_sticky_notes for notes.' The description relies on the tool name and first sentence to convey its purpose.
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 shoulder the burden of behavioral disclosure. It enumerates all supported property fields, including nested style options and layout enum values, giving good insight into what can be changed. However, it does not mention whether updates merge or overwrite existing properties, side effects, or permission requirements, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear args list. Every line adds value, and the supported fields are organized logically with a nested style object and enum values presented inline. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 params, nested object, many editable fields), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameter semantics, enumerates all updatable properties, and even lists valid layout values. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description fully equips an agent to invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only parameter names and types (0% schema description coverage), so the description entirely compensates. It clearly explains each argument: mural_id, widget_id, and properties, and lists every supported field within properties, including the style sub-object and layout allowed values. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an area (swimlane/zone) widget on a mural,' specifying the verb, resource, and widget type. It distinguishes itself from sibling update tools like update_sticky_note and update_shape by explicitly naming 'area (swimlane/zone).'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does 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 update area widgets on a mural. It implicitly differentiates from other update tools by focusing on area-specific properties, though it does not explicitly state alternative tools or when not to use it.
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 several behavioral traits: a limit of 1000 widgets, fixed-width wrapping, HTML support in text, default values for position and size, and the ability to specify a parent area. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a create operation, the mutation is obvious. The description adds value beyond simple 'create' semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized and front-loaded with the main purpose. The bullet list for widget properties is clear and concise, and the 'Args' section reinforces the top-level parameters. Every sentence provides useful information without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is well-documented for its complexity. The description covers limits, defaults, HTML support, and parent-child relationships. An output schema exists, so the lack of a return-value explanation is acceptable. It provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly, including important constraints like the limit and coordinate units.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully. It explains the top-level params 'mural_id' and 'widgets' and details each supported field inside widget objects, including types, defaults, and supported HTML styling. This goes far beyond the sparse schema and gives the agent essential information for constructing a valid request.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create one or more textbox widgets on a mural (limit 1000).' It specifies the verb, resource, and a distinguishing behavior ('Textboxes wrap text to fixed width'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like create_sticky_notes or create_shapes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does 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 creating textbox widgets on a mural. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the focus on textboxes and the fixed-width wrapping behavior implicitly set it apart from other widget-creation tools. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is given, but the context is unambiguous.
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 burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly mentions pagination via limit and next_token, and explains type_filter for narrowing results, which are useful behavioral details. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, but the 'get' verb conveys this. Overall, it reveals key behaviors 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a concise Args list. Every sentence and line adds value, with no waste or redundancy. The front-loaded purpose makes it immediately clear what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: it explains every parameter, mentions pagination and filtering, and lists allowed filter values. The output schema handles return-value details, so no further explanation is needed. The description is complete and self-sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully with an Args section that explains every parameter, including mural_id, type_filter, parent_id, limit, and next_token. It even lists the allowed values for type_filter (areas, arrows, comments, files, sticky notes, texts, icons, images, shapes), providing complete semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get all widgets on a mural' with a specific verb (get), resource (widgets), and scope (on a mural). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_mural and get_mural_widget, as it targets the collection of widgets rather than a single widget or the mural itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does 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 ('Use type_filter to narrow results') and implies it is the bulk retrieval endpoint for all widgets in a mural. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use get_mural_widget instead, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate use case.
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 must convey behavioral traits on its own. It discloses that the operation requires an authenticated user and filters to memberships, and the Args section explains pagination behavior via 'limit' and 'next_token.' While it doesn't explicitly say the operation is read-only or mention rate limits, the verb 'List' strongly implies a non-mutating operation, and the disclosed constraints exceed a minimal description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose followed by two short parameter definitions. It is front-loaded with the purpose, contains no redundant information, and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and a provided output schema, the description covers the purpose, authentication context, membership filtering, and parameter semantics. The existing output schema handles return-value details, so nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and only provides types and defaults. The description compensates fully by defining 'limit' as 'Max results to return' and 'next_token' as 'Pagination token from a previous response,' giving the agent clear semantic guidance for both parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'List all workspaces the authenticated user is a member of,' which uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workspaces') and adds a clear scope (membership). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_rooms and list_murals_in_room, which target different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys a clear usage context: call this to enumerate all workspaces visible to the authenticated user. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related resources, so it does not earn a 5.
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:

[![mural-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/alymohamedhassan/mural-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/alymohamedhassan/mural-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mural-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/alymohamedhassan/mural-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/alymohamedhassan/mural-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alymohamedhassan/mural-mcp'

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