saas-alerts-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: customers, devices, events, billing, reports, and partner operations are all separated. Even similar tools like events_query and events_query_advanced are differentiated by the use of raw Elasticsearch versus standard filters. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'saas_alerts_<resource>_<action>', using snake_case throughout. Actions like list, get, create, update, delete, and set are used predictably. The few top-level tools (navigate, status) still retain the 'saas_alerts' prefix and are easy to understand.
Tool Count2/5
With 30 tools, the server exceeds the 25+ threshold that indicates an overly large tool set. The broad scope of SaaS Alerts management justifies many tools, but there is some redundancy (e.g., multiple device list tools and separate navigation/status tools) that could be consolidated.
Completeness2/5
Customer CRUD is well covered, but there are significant gaps: devices have only list operations (no mapping or ignoring actions), scheduled reports lack an update tool, and users have no management beyond listing. These missing operations create dead ends for agents trying to perform common workflows.
Average 4.1/5 across 30 of 30 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit 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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey. It does not mention effects like whether the report is active immediately, authentication requirements, or return values. While annotations indicate a non-read write operation, the description offers no additional 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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is appropriately concise.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns after creation. The body parameter is an opaque object, and the description does not help an agent understand expected input or creation behavior. This in insufficient for a create operation with no structured output.
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 coverage is 100% for the single 'body' parameter, but the schema description is vague ('Scheduled report configuration payload (see SaaS Alerts API docs)'). The tool description does not elaborate on parameter structure or required fields, so it adds no value beyond the schema baseline.
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 'Create a new scheduled report.' clearly identifies the action (create) and resource (scheduled report). Sibling tools like list/get/delete scheduled reports make 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as scheduling vs. on-demand report generation, or prerequisites. The description simply states what it does without 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?
Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds that the customer is created for the authenticated partner, which is a modest auth context. However, it does not disclose side effects, response behavior, or failure conditions, so it adds only limited value beyond annotations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and directly conveys the action, although it lacks substantive detail that would be beneficial.
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?
With no output schema and a body parameter that is only loosely described as a payload, the tool is incomplete for an agent. It does not explain the expected structure, return values, or possible error conditions, leaving significant gaps in context.
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 only parameter 'body' has a schema description that refers to external API docs, and the tool description itself adds no parameter details. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('SaaS Alerts customer'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling operations like list, update, or delete. The phrase 'for the authenticated partner' adds useful scope.
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 are any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers mentioned. The description merely states the action without explaining when it should be invoked.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a paginated list and that filters are optional, which is useful but not rich—it doesn't mention behavior like default limit, sorting, or error conditions. Since annotations carry the main burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and immediately states the return type. Every word earns its place.
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 has 9 parameters, no output schema, and several closely related sibling tools (query_advanced, count, scroll). The description mentions pagination and filters but does not explain the return structure or differentiate from siblings. It is adequate but incomplete for a tool with this complexity and context.
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 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the generic 'optional filters' and 'paginated list', which doesn't elaborate on specific parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is correct.
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 clear verb ('Query') and resource ('security events from SaaS Alerts'), which makes the purpose obvious. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like `saas_alerts_events_query_advanced` or `saas_alerts_events_scroll`, so it misses the top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the advanced query, count, or scroll tools. It only says 'with optional filters' and 'paginated list', which implies usage for listing events but does not exclude or explain when a different tool would be preferable.
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?
The description adds no behavioral specifics beyond what annotations already declare. It does not clarify whether the update is partial or full replacement, nor does it mention permissions or side effects. Annotations already cover readOnly and destructive hints, but the description fails to add context on top of them.
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?
A single sentence with no fluff, effectively front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple update tool with full schema coverage and annotation hints, the description is adequate. However, it could mention the partial-update behavior implied by 'Fields to update' or what success responses look like, though no output schema makes this less critical.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces 'by ID' and does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides for the 'body' and 'customer_id' 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 clearly states 'Update an existing SaaS Alerts customer by ID' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, and get.
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 word 'existing' implies a prerequisite that the customer must already exist, providing a faint usage hint. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or delete.
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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context by stating it 'overwrites the existing account whitelist' and labels it 'HIGH-IMPACT'. It also instructs to confirm with the user, which is an additional safety cue beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, containing only two sentences. Every sentence earns its place: the first warns of high impact, the second states the action and the need for user confirmation. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core behavior (replace, overwrite) and the key safety requirement (confirm with user). However, given that this is a destructive, high-impact operation with a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description could provide more context about the expected payload, the meaning of 'account-level whitelist', or the result of the operation. These gaps are notable.
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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage (customer_id and body). The description does not add any extra meaning about these parameters, such as the structure of the body payload or any constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action with a specific verb ('Replace') and a specific resource ('account-level whitelist for a customer'). It also mentions that it overwrites the existing whitelist, which adds precision. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'saas_alerts_customers_set_whitelists', though the name and 'account-level' phrasing give some distinction.
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 provides a clear context for invocation ('Confirm with the user before invoking') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'saas_alerts_customers_set_whitelists'. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative suggestions, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. Description adds minimal extra behavior—only clarifying 'mapped' as 'unified'—and does not address pagination, output format, or required permissions.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and object, no redundant words. Efficient and to the point.
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?
Tool is simple with one required param and no output schema, but description does not mention what device fields are returned, pagination, or any operational nuances. It is adequate for a basic list but leaves some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with 'Organization IDs to filter by' for the only parameter. Description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'devices that have been mapped (unified) to SaaS Alerts customer organizations', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like devices_list_unmapped and devices_list_ignored.
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 mapped devices but does not explicitly mention when to use this vs alternatives such as unmapped or ignored. It provides no exclusions or alternative tool references, relying on tool naming to differentiate.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds that devices are 'explicitly marked as ignored', which provides some behavioral context, but does not cover pagination, ordering, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function with no waste.
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?
For a simple tool with one well-documented parameter and safety annotations, the description is adequate. However, it lacks context about pagination, the meaning of 'ignored', and doesn't contrast with sibling list tools, so it falls slightly short of fully complete.
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 coverage is 100% with a descriptive parameter (organization_ids: 'Organization IDs to filter by'), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('devices') with a clear scope ('explicitly marked as ignored'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_mapped and list_unmapped.
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 or alternatives are mentioned. The usage is implied by the name and sibling context (e.g., this is for ignored devices only), but the description itself lacks direct guidance 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the visibility scoping ('visible to the authenticated partner'), which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, or response size, leaving some uncertainty for 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word contributes to meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with strong annotations, the description is largely complete. The only minor gap is that 'device organizations' is not further defined, which could confuse an agent unfamiliar with the domain. However, the phrase is reasonably self-explanatory given the tool name and sibling context, so it suffices.
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?
There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% because no parameters exist. The baseline of 4 applies here, and the description adds appropriate context about what is returned without needing to explain parameter behavior. No further parameter semantics are necessary.
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 ('List') and the resource ('all device organizations visible to the authenticated partner'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list mapped/unmapped/ignored devices, as 'device organizations' is a different entity. The scope is explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what is returned.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not why or when to choose it over sibling tools like saas_alerts_devices_list_mapped. Since the siblings exist, this lack of differentiation or usage context is a notable gap.
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?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating it executes a raw Elasticsearch query body and does not fetch full records, which clarifies the efficiency and return type. However, it does not describe the exact response format or any potential query limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that effectively conveys the core purpose and a key differentiator. 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.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with strong read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the main purpose and the fact that it does not return records. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other count/query tools and does not state the return value structure, though 'count' implies a numeric result.
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 input schema already provides a description for the 'query' parameter ('Elasticsearch query body'). The description repeats this as 'raw Elasticsearch query body' without adding additional semantics, constraints, or examples. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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 verb and resource: 'Count events using a raw Elasticsearch query body'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by adding 'without fetching full records', clarifying that this tool returns only a count rather than full records, setting it apart from query tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the simpler saas_alerts_events_count or saas_alerts_events_query_advanced. The description implies it is for raw-query counting, but fails to mention alternatives, exclusions, or context for use.
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 adds behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying that it overwrites the existing whitelist and requires user confirmation. This is valuable for an agent assessing consequences.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the HIGH-IMPACT warning. Every word is necessary.
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 destructive nature and confirmation requirement, but leaves the 'body' structure underspecified. The schema also lacks nested property definitions, so an agent cannot construct a valid payload without further details.
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?
Both parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter semantics, and the 'body' parameter description only says 'Whitelist payload (IPs and/or country codes)' without structural detail, so it does not elevate beyond baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool replaces the IP/country whitelist for a customer, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'saas_alerts_customers_set_account_whitelists', relying on the 'customer' scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear usage context with the HIGH-IMPACT warning and instructs to confirm with the user before invoking. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the customer-level scope is implied.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as potential performance impacts, result size limits, or error handling for arbitrary query bodies. It is not contradictory but adds minimal value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word adds value—'advanced', 'raw', 'maximum flexibility' all contribute to understanding. No redundancy or extraneous 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?
Given the tool's complexity (raw ES query) and absence of an output schema, the description is minimal and does not explain the return format, pagination, or potential risks (e.g., large result sets). Annotations mitigate safety concerns but the behavioral context remains incomplete for an advanced query tool.
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 input schema covers 100% of parameters and already includes an example query body. The description adds 'raw Elasticsearch query body' and 'maximum flexibility', which reinforces the schema but does not provide deeper semantic explanation beyond what the schema offers. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Execute') and names the exact resource ('SaaS Alerts events index'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like saas_alerts_events_query by emphasizing 'advanced' and 'raw Elasticsearch query body'. It conveys the tool's unique purpose of providing maximum flexibility through raw queries.
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 context: it's for advanced queries needing raw ES bodies, which is clear guidance on when to choose this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention simpler alternatives (like saas_alerts_events_query) or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of full exclusion 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the profile is associated with the authenticated API key, which is useful scoping context. However, it does not disclose return format, potential errors, or any other behavioral nuances beyond what annotations provide.
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 single, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.
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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, strong annotations), the description fully covers what the tool does and its auth-based scope. The profile itself is the implied return value, and the annotations handle safety/behavior. No significant gaps remain.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4; the description adds no parameter information because none is needed.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('partner profile') and scope ('associated with the authenticated API key'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'saas_alerts_partner_update_branding' (update vs get) and 'saas_alerts_users_list_partner' (partner profile vs user list).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention alternatives or conditions like 'use this to fetch the current partner's profile' or 'versus listing partners.' Simple tools can imply usage, but no such context 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?
Annotations already declare this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which covers the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the basic get operation, such as error handling or return format. It does not contradict annotations, and the annotations fulfill most transparency needs.
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 single clear sentence that is immediately understandable. It wastes no words and effectively communicates the tool's purpose and scope.
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 tool is simple with one required parameter and no output schema. The description is sufficient for the core operation, though it does not explicitly mention the return value or error behavior. Given the low complexity and strong annotations, it is almost complete, but a bit more context (e.g., returns customer object or 404) would push it to 5.
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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter (customer_id) with a clear description 'Customer ID'. The description's phrase 'by ID' adds little beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is complete, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Get a single SaaS Alerts customer by ID' clearly specifies the action (get), the resource (customer), and the scope (single by ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list, create, update, and delete by focusing on retrieval of one specific customer.
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 clearly implies this tool is used when you have a specific customer_id and need that customer's details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the CRUD sibling set. A score of 4 reflects clear context without explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context, only restating the purpose. It does not mention rate limits, pagination, or return format, but the annotations cover the safety profile.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no redundant words. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple filtered-list tool with good annotations and complete schema, the description adequately covers the main purpose and optional filters. It does not detail output or additional constraints, but those are not crucial for the tool's simplicity.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only paraphrases the optional filter parameters without adding new syntax, defaults, or format details 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 states a specific action (list) and resource (devices), and clearly specifies the scope (NOT yet mapped to a SaaS Alerts organization). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_mapped or list_ignored.
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 clearly implies when to use it (when needing unmapped devices) and mentions optional filters, but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tools are evident from context, but no explicit exclusion 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no new behavioral context such as error handling, pagination, or response format, but it is consistent with the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence of eight words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool does and implies the return value (the scheduled report). While it lacks explicit details about failure modes or response structure, the simplicity and existing annotations make it adequate, falling just short of fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% since the only parameter 'report_id' is described as 'Scheduled report ID'. The description 'by its ID' merely repeats this, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a specific scheduled report by its ID' clearly states a specific verb (Get), resource (scheduled report), and qualifier (by its ID). It distinguishes from siblings like list_scheduled, create_scheduled, and delete_scheduled by emphasizing specificity and ID-based retrieval.
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 a clear usage condition: use this tool when you have a specific report ID and need that single report. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'for listing all reports, use list_scheduled'), but the context is unambiguous and the sibling list includes the obvious listing counterpart.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope 'for the authenticated partner,' which is useful. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or other behavior, which is a gap given that no output schema exists.
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 single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and resource, with no redundant words. It earns its place perfectly.
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 zero parameters, strong safety annotations, and clear purpose, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, the scope, and implies the return of a list. No additional details are necessary for correct selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
This tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description reinforces that there are no filters by saying 'all customers.' Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools; no additional parameter semantics are needed.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('all SaaS Alerts customers') and a scope qualifier ('for the authenticated partner'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like saas_alerts_customers_get (single customer) and user listing tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'List all' implies this is the tool for broad enumeration of customers, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'for a single customer, use saas_alerts_customers_get' or 'for users, use saas_alerts_users_list_partner'. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no additional behavioral details such as pagination or return structure, but it aligns with the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words, making it highly 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?
For a simple read-only, idempotent tool with a single parameter, the description and annotations provide sufficient context. It clearly communicates the action and scope, and the lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit 'List all users' phrasing.
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 only parameter, customer_id, is fully described in the schema as 'Customer ID to list users for.' The description reinforces this by mentioning 'specific SaaS Alerts customer,' but adds no extra format or source information.
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: 'List all users belonging to a specific SaaS Alerts customer.' It uses a precise verb and resource, with scope defined by 'specific customer,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like saas_alerts_users_list_partner.
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 establishes clear context: it is for listing users associated with a single customer. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the 'specific customer' scoping implies when 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?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by stating it counts matches without retrieving full records, which informs the agent about the tool's lightweight nature. It does not add operational details like limits or timezone handling, but the annotations lower the burden.
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 single, information-dense sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Count security events') and contains no filler or redundant content.
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?
For a simple counting tool with five optional filters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the primary purpose and a key behavioral constraint. However, it does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., an integer count), leaving a minor gap in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description only generically references 'the given filters' and adds no parameter-specific semantics, earning the baseline 3.
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 uses a specific verb ('Count') and resource ('security events'), and adds the scope-limiting phrase 'matching the given filters' plus 'without fetching full records,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling query tools like saas_alerts_events_query and saas_alerts_events_scroll.
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 phrase 'without fetching full records' strongly implies this tool is for when only a count is needed, not detailed event data. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of the highest bar.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds valuable context that navigation is not a prerequisite for other tools, clarifying that it has no side effects and is purely informational. This exceeds the annotation baseline by explaining the tool's non-gating role.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and object; the second clarifies the optional nature, both earning their place. Highly concise.
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?
For a simple navigation tool with one enum parameter and strong annotation coverage, the description is sufficiently complete. It communicates the tool's purpose and usage context without missing critical behavior. The lack of output schema is acceptable given the tool's nature.
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 input schema fully documents the 'domain' parameter with an enum list and description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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: browsing a domain to discover available tools and descriptions. It distinguishes this from sibling tools, which perform actual operations, by positioning this as an optional navigation helper. The phrase 'navigation is optional discovery, not a gate' reinforces 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states that all tools are callable at any time and that navigation is optional, which tells the agent when this tool is not needed (before any operation). It provides clear context for using it as an exploratory aid without mandating it. It doesn't name alternatives, but the clarification 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, pagination, required prerequisites). It simply restates the read-only nature through 'Get' and the return type, which is useful but not beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, each adding value: the first states exactly what the tool does, the second explains when to use it. No redundant or filler language. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.
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, parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers its purpose and usage. It mentions the return type ('list'), the domain (SaaS Alerts event types), and the practical application (actionable guidance). No further details are necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. It adds no parameter information because there are none to describe.
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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('list of recommended remediation actions for SaaS Alerts event types'), and adds a use case ('map detected event types to actionable guidance'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like events_query or customers_list.
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 it: 'Use this to map detected event types to actionable guidance.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the usage context is unambiguous and distinct from siblings.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the scope ('partner account') but no additional behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or response format. Since annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.
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 single, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description completely covers the purpose and scope. It explains what the tool does and what it returns (a list of users), so no further context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none are needed.
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: 'List all users associated with the authenticated partner account.' It uses a specific verb ('List'), resource ('users'), and scope ('authenticated partner account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_by_customer.
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 (listing users for the authenticated partner account) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The absence of exclusions makes it a 4 rather than 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?
Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is clear. The description adds context about the scroll-based pagination mechanism and its dependency on a prior query, going beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two sentences: the first states the action, the second gives the prerequisite. Every word is purposeful and there is no fluff.
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?
For a simple one-parameter pagination tool, the description explains the action and prerequisite clearly. It does not describe the return format, but given the low complexity and existing annotations, this is only a minor gap.
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 provides 100% coverage for scroll_id with a clear description. The tool description reinforces this but adds no new details about the parameter's format or origin, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'Continue paginating' and identifies the resource 'previous event query result set'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly referencing the prerequisite tool 'saas_alerts_events_query_advanced'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call after saas_alerts_events_query_advanced returns a scroll ID.' This provides clear timing and prerequisite information, making the selection 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description complements this by explaining that it fetches the authenticated user and returns domains and connection status. This adds context about the operation's nature and output beyond the structured hints, with no contradictions.
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 entire description is two sentences with no redundant phrases. It front-loads the action ('Check connectivity') and immediately follows with the return value, 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?
For a parameterless status tool with no output schema, the description gives enough information: it states the outcome (connection status and available domains) and the mechanism (fetching the authenticated user). While it might not detail the exact structure of the status, the context is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.
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?
There are no parameters in the schema, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it doesn't try to invent any, so it adequately covers the input side.
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 checks connectivity to SaaS Alerts by fetching the authenticated MSP user, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from siblings like saas_alerts_users_get_msp by emphasizing connection status and domains rather than just user data.
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 a clear context for when to use this tool: to verify connectivity to SaaS Alerts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can decide when a connectivity check is needed.
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?
Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses that all associated data is permanently deleted and the action cannot be undone. This adds meaningful context about cascading effects and the need for confirmation.
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 single concise sentence with a leading warning icon, front-loading the critical destructive nature. Every word contributes to the safety-critical message with no 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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description fully covers the essential safety aspects: irreversibility, data scope, and user confirmation. No further return-value or error documentation is necessary for this delete operation.
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 input schema already documents customer_id with 'Customer ID to delete' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional format, source, or prerequisite details for the parameter, so it remains at baseline.
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 uses the specific verb 'deletes' and names the resource 'SaaS Alerts customer' with scope 'all associated data'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling create/update/list/get tools by describing the destructive action.
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 use by warning that the action is destructive, irreversible, and requires user confirmation. It does not explicitly name non-destructive alternatives, but the strong warning makes the appropriate usage unambiguous.
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?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical behavioral context: 'This overwrites existing branding' and 'Confirm with the user before invoking.' These go beyond the annotation flags by specifying what is affected and the required user confirmation step. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true).
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 front-loaded with a warning emoji and 'HIGH-IMPACT'. It packs purpose, overwrite behavior, and user-confirmation requirement into two short sentences. Every element earns its place; there is no fluff 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?
For a simple update tool with one nested parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, that it overwrites, and that confirmation is required. The schema documents the payload. No significant gaps remain for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'body' parameter, describing it as 'Branding payload (logoUrl, primaryColor, etc.)'. The description adds minimal new information (e.g., 'logo, colours') but does not meaningfully enhance understanding beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Update the partner branding settings (logo, colours, etc.)'. It uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('partner branding settings'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'saas_alerts_partner_get_profile' by implying mutation vs. read. The additional phrase 'This overwrites existing branding' further clarifies the purpose and impact.
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: it is high-impact, overwrites existing branding, and instructs to 'Confirm with the user before invoking.' This gives practical guidance on when and how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'use get_profile for viewing') or exclusions, so it stops short of a full 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?
The description goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by explicitly stating the action is irreversible and cannot be undone, and it mandates user confirmation. This adds valuable behavioral context not captured in the structured metadata.
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, with a prominent warning front-loaded (⚠ DESTRUCTIVE — IRREVERSIBLE) and only two sentences total. Every word earns its place, and it is immediately scannable.
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 one-parameter delete operation with annotations already flagging destructiveness, the description is fully sufficient. It does not need to explain return values or further details, as the input schema and annotations cover the rest.
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 input schema already fully describes the only parameter (report_id: 'Scheduled report ID to delete'), covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Permanently delete a scheduled report') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_scheduled, get_scheduled, and list_scheduled by explicitly naming the delete operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage instruction: 'Confirm with the user before invoking.' While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, the destructive nature and the confirmation requirement give sufficient context for when to use this tool.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds the scope 'authenticated partner,' which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradiction; it effectively communicates the safe, read-only nature.
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?
A single, concise sentence that directly states the action and scope. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with the verb and resource.
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 operation with no parameters, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It fully conveys the tool's function and scope, and the annotations cover safety aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the rubric, baseline is 4 for 0 params. The description adds no parameter details because none exist; nothing is needed.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'scheduled reports' and clarifies scope as 'configured for the authenticated partner.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_scheduled, create_scheduled, and delete_scheduled.
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: it lists all scheduled reports for the partner. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling names imply distinctions.
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?
Annotations already declare the operation safe and idempotent. The description adds that the tool works as a credential check, which is a behavioral trait beyond the structured hints, and clarifies the association with the API key.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose, and efficiently adds a secondary use case with no redundant wording.
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 no-parameter, read-only tool with solid annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and return value, making it fully adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters in the schema, the description explains that the operation uses the authenticated API key implicitly, providing meaning beyond the empty input schema. This fits the baseline for no-parameter tools.
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 clearly states the tool returns the MSP user profile tied to the authenticated API key, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like partner_get_profile and users_list_partner.
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?
Description identifies a key secondary use (connectivity/credential check) providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by revealing that billing dates must be discovered via list_dates first, which is a useful workflow constraint. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first clearly states the action and scope, the second provides essential usage context. There is no redundancy or filler; every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description is adequate. It covers what it does and the prerequisite workflow. While it doesn't enumerate the return fields of 'billing details', the tool name and domain context make the purpose sufficiently clear, and no output schema exists to demand more detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter format is already documented. The description adds meaning by implying that billing_date must be one of the available dates from list_dates, linking the parameter to the prerequisite discovery step and enriching beyond the schema's format-only description.
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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' with resource 'billing details' and a clear scope ('for a specific billing date'). It distinguishes from the sibling saas_alerts_billing_list_dates by positioning it as a prerequisite, 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 Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs the agent to 'Use saas_alerts_billing_list_dates first to discover available dates,' providing a concrete workflow and pointing to the relevant sibling tool. This is clear when-to-use guidance with no ambiguity.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety traits. The description adds valuable context about the 'authenticated partner' scope and the intended downstream use, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not describe edge cases like no dates available, but for a simple list 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and immediately followed by usage guidance. No wasted words—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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully conveys what it returns (billing dates) and how to use them. The reference to the sibling tool provides the necessary context for chaining calls, making the description complete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so the description has no parameter burden. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the output is billing dates that can be fed into another tool, which helps the agent understand the data flow without needing parameter details.
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 'List all available billing dates for the authenticated partner' uses a specific verb (list) and clearly identifies the resource (billing dates) and scope (authenticated partner). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by pointing to saas_alerts_billing_get_details as the next step, making 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 Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states the primary usage pattern: 'Use the returned dates as input to saas_alerts_billing_get_details.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and how it relates to a specific alternative, effectively guiding tool selection.
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:

[![saas-alerts-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/am3cramirez/saas-alerts-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/am3cramirez/saas-alerts-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![saas-alerts-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/am3cramirez/saas-alerts-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/am3cramirez/saas-alerts-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/am3cramirez/saas-alerts-mcp'

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