AAP MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tool set shows significant functional overlap, particularly between gateway-specific tools (e.g., gateway_auth_management, gateway_service_management) and their generic counterparts (gateway_generic_api, generic_aap_api), which could confuse agents about when to use specialized vs. generic tools. However, descriptions help clarify distinct scopes within overlapping domains like management vs. direct API access.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with descriptive names (e.g., credential_management, inventory_host_management), but there are minor deviations like create_workflow_survey (verb-first) versus others (noun-first). Overall, the naming is predictable and readable across the set.
Tool Count3/5
With 18 tools, the count is borderline high for a single server, suggesting potential fragmentation. While it covers a broad domain (AAP management), some tools could be consolidated (e.g., overlapping gateway tools), making the set feel slightly heavy but still manageable.
Completeness5/5
The tool set comprehensively covers the AAP management domain, including CRUD operations for credentials, inventories, jobs, templates, users, and more, plus advanced features like analytics and bulk operations. No obvious gaps exist; agents can handle full lifecycle workflows without dead ends.
Average 2.5/5 across 18 of 18 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe any behavioral traits: it doesn't indicate whether operations are read-only or destructive, what permissions are required, whether operations are synchronous or asynchronous, rate limits, or what the output contains. The description is purely functional without behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (two sentences) but inefficiently structured. The first sentence restates the name, and the second lists capabilities without prioritization or context. While not verbose, it lacks front-loaded clarity and wastes space on repetition rather than providing useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, multiple action types) and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. Although an output schema exists, the description fails to explain the tool's scope, behavioral expectations, or usage context. For a multi-function tool with no annotation support, this leaves critical gaps in understanding.
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 schema already documents all 9 parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how parameters interact or which are required for specific actions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't add value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool handles 'bulk actions, resource copying, data import/export, and system utilities', which is a list of capabilities rather than a specific purpose. It restates the name ('bulk operations and utilities') without clearly defining what the tool actually does or distinguishing it from siblings like 'job_execution_management' or 'workflow_automation_management'. This is more of a tautology than a clear purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 provides no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools with overlapping domains (e.g., 'job_execution_management', 'workflow_automation_management'), the lack of differentiation is particularly problematic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether operations are read-only or destructive, what permissions are required, whether operations are synchronous or asynchronous, what error conditions exist, or any rate limits. The description mentions 'bulk operations' but provides no context about what that entails behaviorally.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two sentences, but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified. While there's no wasted text, the description fails to provide essential information that would help an agent use the tool effectively. The structure is simple but inadequate for such a complex tool with 11 parameters and numerous possible actions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, 22 possible actions, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't help the agent understand the tool's scope, when to use it, what behaviors to expect, or how to choose appropriate parameters. For a multi-action management tool with numerous sibling alternatives, this description leaves critical gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters interact, which parameters are required for which actions, or provide examples of valid parameter values. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Enhanced inventory and host management tool' which is tautological with the tool name 'inventory_host_management'. While it mentions handling 'inventories, hosts, groups, sources, and bulk operations', this is too broad and doesn't specify what verbs are actually performed. The description fails to distinguish this tool from its many siblings on the server.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 16 sibling tools on the server including 'bulk_operations_utilities', 'configuration_system_management', and 'workflow_automation_management', the agent receives no help in determining when this specific inventory/host management tool is appropriate versus other tools that might handle similar operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether operations are read-only or destructive, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, what happens when jobs are launched/canceled, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with 13 parameters and multiple action types including destructive ones like 'delete_execution_env', this is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (two sentences) but inefficient. The first sentence ('Enhanced job and execution management tool') is redundant with the name. The second sentence lists categories but doesn't convey actionable information. While it's concise, it fails to front-load useful information that would help an agent understand the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, multiple action types, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is inadequate. While the output schema may help with return values, the description doesn't provide necessary context about the tool's scope, behavioral characteristics, or differentiation from sibling tools. For a multi-function tool with potential destructive operations, more guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., which parameters are needed for which actions) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Enhanced job and execution management tool. Handles jobs, ad-hoc commands, execution environments, and job events' is vague and tautological. It restates the tool name ('job and execution management') without specifying what 'enhanced' means or what concrete operations are performed. It lists categories but doesn't provide a clear verb+resource statement of what the tool actually does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 the 16 sibling tools listed. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent would have no idea whether to use this tool or one of the other management tools like 'workflow_automation_management' or 'configuration_system_management' for job-related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It vaguely states 'handles' various resources but doesn't specify whether this includes create/update/delete operations (though the schema reveals this), what permissions are needed, whether operations are destructive, what happens on errors, or typical response formats. For a complex tool with 11 parameters and multiple resource types, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (two sentences) but inefficiently structured. The first sentence is redundant with the tool name, and the second merely lists resource types without functional context. While concise, it fails to front-load critical information about the tool's purpose or usage, making it less helpful than it could be at this length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, multiple resource types, CRUD operations), the description is inadequate. While there's an output schema (which helps), the description doesn't provide necessary context about the tool's scope, behavioral characteristics, or relationship to sibling tools. For a management tool with no annotations, the description should do much more to help an agent understand when and how to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, when each is required, or provide examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't compensate with additional semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gateway service management tool. Handles services, service types, service clusters, service nodes, and routes' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name ('gateway_service_management') with slightly more detail. It lists resource types but lacks a specific verb or clear functional purpose. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'gateway_auth_management' or 'gateway_monitoring_management' beyond the resource domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 11 sibling tools including related ones like 'gateway_auth_management' and 'gateway_monitoring_management', there's no indication of this tool's specific scope, prerequisites, or appropriate use cases. The agent receives no help in choosing between these tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It mentions the resource types but doesn't indicate whether operations are read-only or destructive, what permissions might be required, how errors are handled, or what the typical response format looks like. The description doesn't contradict annotations (since none exist), but provides inadequate behavioral context for a tool with multiple potential mutation actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (two sentences) but under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The first sentence 'Project and content management tool' is tautological with the tool name, and the second sentence lists resource types without operational clarity. While it's not verbose, it fails to use its limited space effectively to provide meaningful guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a complex multi-action tool (12 different actions) with no annotations, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description doesn't help the agent understand the tool's scope, behavioral characteristics, or appropriate usage contexts. For a tool that can perform create, update, delete, and list operations across multiple resource types, the description should provide more guidance about when and how to use it.
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 schema already documents all 6 parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between parameters, when each is required, or provide examples of valid values. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have added value by explaining the action parameter's significance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it 'handles projects, playbooks, organizations, and project updates' which is a vague list of resource types without specifying what actions it performs. It doesn't provide a clear verb+resource combination or distinguish this multi-purpose tool from its siblings. While it mentions the scope, it lacks specificity about what 'handles' means operationally.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the 16 sibling tools listed. There's no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or alternatives. The agent would have no way to determine whether to use this tool or one of the other management tools like 'workflow_automation_management' or 'configuration_system_management' for related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'handles' various features but doesn't disclose whether operations are read-only or destructive, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, or what the response format looks like. For a complex tool with 9 parameters covering multiple domains, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (2 sentences) but inefficiently structured. The first sentence is tautological, and the second is a comma-separated list that doesn't convey meaningful relationships. While not verbose, it fails to use its limited space effectively to provide actionable information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex, multi-purpose tool with 9 parameters and no annotations. While an output schema exists, the description fails to provide necessary context about scope, behavioral characteristics, or differentiation from siblings. For such a broad tool covering mesh visualization, receptor management, debug tools, approval workflows, and bulk operations, the description is woefully inadequate.
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 schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions some action values (mesh visualization, receptor management, etc.) but doesn't explain their relationships to parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'System extensions and advanced features management tool' which is a tautology that restates the tool name. It lists categories (mesh visualization, receptor management, etc.) but doesn't specify what actions are performed (create, update, delete, list, etc.) or on what resources. The purpose is vague rather than specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 the 16 sibling tools listed. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or alternatives. The agent receives no help in distinguishing this multi-purpose tool from specialized siblings like credential_management or inventory_host_management.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It vaguely states 'handles' but does not clarify whether operations are read-only, destructive, require specific permissions, have rate limits, or what the typical outputs are. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two short sentences and no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be more structured by explicitly listing key actions or use cases to improve clarity without adding unnecessary length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the multi-action nature implied by the 'action' parameter, the relationships between parameters, or typical use cases. While the output schema may cover return values, the description fails to provide enough context for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter clearly documented in the schema (e.g., 'action' with enumerated values, 'credential_id' as ID). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool handles 'credentials, credential types, and access tokens' but is vague about what 'handles' means. It restates the name 'credential_management' without specifying concrete actions like create, update, delete, or list. While it mentions three resource types, it lacks a clear verb that distinguishes its purpose from siblings like 'user_access_management' or 'gateway_auth_management'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context for selection, or exclusions. With siblings like 'user_access_management' and 'gateway_auth_management' that might overlap, the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent guessing about appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'handles' various entities but does not specify whether operations are read-only, destructive, require authentication, or have rate limits. For a tool with 20 parameters and complex actions (including deletes), this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently state the tool's domain and scope. There is no wasted text, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from entity list).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (20 parameters, diverse actions including deletions), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain behavioral traits, usage context, or how actions relate to parameters, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use this tool correctly despite the schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists entity types (users, teams, etc.), which loosely maps to some parameters, but with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 20 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, such as hinting at the scope of actions, but does not provide additional syntax or format details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool handles 'authentication and access management' and lists entity types (users, teams, etc.), which provides a general domain. However, it lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'manage' or 'perform CRUD operations on') and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'user_access_management' or 'credential_management', making it vague and potentially overlapping.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with sibling tools like 'user_access_management' and 'credential_management' present, there is no clarification on differentiation, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only lists resource categories without explaining what operations are performed (read vs write), what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, or what the typical response format looks like. For a tool with 4 parameters and multiple action types, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with just two sentences. It's front-loaded with the core purpose statement. However, the second sentence could be more structured - it's essentially a comma-separated list of resource types without clear organization.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters including a multi-option 'action' parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the relationship between the action parameter values and the resource categories mentioned, nor does it provide context about what types of monitoring/analytics operations are supported. The description should do more to help an agent understand when and how to use this multi-purpose 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how the 'action' parameter relates to the listed resource categories, or provide examples of when to use specific parameter combinations. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Monitoring and analytics tool' which is a tautology of the tool name 'monitoring_analytics'. It lists broad categories (dashboards, metrics, activity streams, system information) but doesn't specify what the tool actually does with these resources. The description fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'gateway_monitoring_management' or 'advanced_analytics_management'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. With multiple sibling tools that might overlap in monitoring/analytics functionality (gateway_monitoring_management, advanced_analytics_management), the absence of differentiation guidance is problematic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool 'handles' but doesn't describe whether these are read-only operations, mutations, or administrative functions. There's no information about permissions needed, rate limits, side effects, or what the output contains. The description is purely functional without behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and efficiently structured in two sentences. The first establishes the tool category, and the second enumerates specific analytics types. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be more front-loaded with a clearer purpose statement.
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 (7 parameters, multiple actions) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It identifies the domain but doesn't help an agent understand when to use which action or how to interpret results. The output schema existence reduces the need to describe return values, but more operational context would be helpful.
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 schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples of valid filter structures, or clarify when certain parameters are required together. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool handles 'advanced analytics and reporting management' and lists specific analytics types (job analytics, host analysis, adoption metrics, ROI analysis, custom reports), which gives a general purpose. However, it lacks a specific verb and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'monitoring_analytics' - the distinction between 'advanced analytics' and 'monitoring analytics' is unclear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'monitoring_analytics' or other sibling tools, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool 'handles' without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether operations are read-only or destructive, rate limits, or response formats. It lacks crucial context for a multi-action tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two concise sentences that cover the main domains. It's front-loaded with the tool's scope, though it could be more structured by explicitly mentioning the action parameter's role.
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 (6 parameters, multi-action) and no annotations, the description is incomplete—it doesn't explain the action parameter's significance or behavioral implications. However, the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, keeping it at a minimum viable level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool handles 'system settings, instance groups, and license information', which provides a general purpose but lacks specific verbs and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'system_extensions_management' or 'gateway_service_management'. It's vague about what 'handles' means in terms of specific operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'system_extensions_management' or 'gateway_service_management'. The description mentions broad categories but doesn't provide context for choosing this tool over others in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It mentions 'monitoring and configuration' but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether actions are read-only or destructive, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with multiple action types (e.g., delete_http_port), this omission is significant.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, listing key domains in two sentences without unnecessary details. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating monitoring from configuration functions, and the second sentence is a bit run-on, slightly reducing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, multiple action types) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers broad functional areas but lacks depth on behavioral aspects, usage context, and integration with siblings. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate, but the output schema helps mitigate 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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the action parameter's scope (e.g., activity streams, HTTP ports). This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool handles 'gateway monitoring and configuration' with specific domains like 'activity streams, settings, status monitoring, and HTTP port management', which gives a general purpose. However, it's vague about what 'handles' means (e.g., create, read, update, delete) and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'gateway_auth_management' or 'gateway_service_management', leaving ambiguity in 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description lists functional areas but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or comparisons to siblings like 'gateway_auth_management' or 'monitoring_analytics'. Usage is implied through the action parameter, but no context for selection is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't indicate which actions are read-only versus destructive, what permissions are required, or how errors are handled. The description mentions 'handles' but doesn't clarify the behavioral implications of different actions like 'delete_job_template' versus 'list_job_templates'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with just two sentences. It's front-loaded with the main purpose statement. However, the second sentence could be more specific about what 'handles' entails to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.
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 (6 parameters, multiple action types) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It should provide more context about the tool's scope and behavioral characteristics since annotations are absent. The description doesn't help users understand when to choose specific actions or how different actions relate to each other.
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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide examples of valid parameter combinations. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it 'handles job templates, workflow templates, and survey specifications' which gives a general purpose but lacks specificity about what 'handles' means. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_workflow_survey' or 'workflow_automation_management' that might have overlapping functionality. The description is vague about the actual operations performed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for selection, or differentiation from sibling tools like 'create_workflow_survey' or 'workflow_automation_management'. Users must infer usage from the action parameter alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate whether operations are read-only or destructive, mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, leaving critical gaps for a tool with potential write actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded in two sentences, with no wasted words. However, it could be more structured by explicitly listing key actions or use cases to enhance clarity.
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 with 9 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on behavioral aspects and usage guidelines, but the output schema reduces the need to explain return values, making it minimally adequate.
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 schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples, but meets the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool handles 'users, teams, roles, permissions, and OAuth applications,' which provides a general purpose but lacks a specific verb or clear differentiation from sibling tools like 'credential_management' or 'gateway_auth_management.' It's vague about what 'handles' entails beyond listing entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'handles' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether actions are read-only or destructive, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with 15 parameters and multiple actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently outline the tool's scope. However, it could be more structured by explicitly listing key actions or use cases to enhance clarity without adding unnecessary length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity with 15 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context and usage guidance, though the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. This results in a minimal viable but gap-filled description.
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 schema documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool handles 'workflow templates, nodes, schedules, and notifications,' which gives a general scope but lacks a specific verb or clear differentiation from sibling tools like 'create_workflow_survey' or 'job_execution_management.' It's vague about what 'handles' entails, making it adequate but not precise.
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. With siblings like 'create_workflow_survey' and 'job_execution_management,' the description fails to indicate specific contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'handles specific format requirements' but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether this is a mutation (likely yes given 'create'), error conditions, or what happens on success. The example shows structure but doesn't explain behavioral traits like validation rules or system impacts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized but not optimally structured. The first two sentences clearly state purpose, but the extensive example (which is valuable) dominates the text. While the example earns its place by clarifying parameter semantics, the description could be more front-loaded with critical usage information before the example.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 100% schema coverage, and no complex annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It provides purpose, format requirements through example, and clarifies the 'questions' parameter structure. The main gap is lack of behavioral context and usage guidelines, but the structured fields cover much of the technical detail.
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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value through the detailed example showing question format with fields like 'question_name', 'type', 'choices', etc., which clarifies the expected structure of the 'questions' array parameter beyond the schema's generic 'items: {}' definition. However, it doesn't explain other parameters beyond what the schema provides.
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 creates a survey for a workflow job template with proper formatting, specifying the verb 'create' and resource 'survey for workflow job template'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'AAP survey specs' format requirements, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for similar functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions 'proper formatting for AAP survey specs', it doesn't specify prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or refer to sibling tools like 'template_survey_management' or 'workflow_automation_management' that might handle related functions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'proper authentication' which is useful context, but doesn't describe rate limits, error handling, response formats, pagination, or what happens with destructive operations like DELETE. For a generic API tool that could perform any operation, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by helpful examples. Each example demonstrates a different use case efficiently. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality, though the examples section is somewhat lengthy for a description.
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 (generic API access with 4 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which means return values are documented elsewhere), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and provides usage examples, but lacks important behavioral context about authentication details, error handling, and when to use versus specialized siblings, which is crucial for a tool of this 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value through concrete examples showing how parameters combine (e.g., GET with params, POST with data), which helps understand parameter semantics beyond individual descriptions. However, it doesn't add significant new semantic information beyond what the schema provides.
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 provides 'direct access to any AAP Gateway API endpoint with proper authentication', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a generic API access tool rather than domain-specific management tools like 'gateway_service_management' or 'user_access_management'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'generic_aap_api' which appears to be a similar sibling.
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 context through examples showing when to use GET, POST, etc., but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this generic tool versus the many specialized sibling tools. There's no mention of trade-offs, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over domain-specific alternatives like 'gateway_service_management' for service operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'proper authentication' which is useful context, but doesn't describe rate limits, error handling, response formats, or what happens with destructive operations (DELETE/PATCH). The examples show different use cases but don't explain behavioral traits like whether operations are idempotent, reversible, or have side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with a clear opening statement followed by relevant examples. Each example demonstrates a different parameter combination, earning its place. However, the examples could be more efficiently grouped or explained with brief commentary rather than just listing them.
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 (generic API access with 5 parameters), no annotations, but with output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers basic purpose and provides examples, but lacks important context about authentication details, error handling, and when to use this versus specialized tools. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but behavioral aspects remain underspecified.
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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value through concrete examples showing how parameters work together: method+endpoint combinations, when to use data vs params, and the specific use case for get_stdout. The examples provide practical semantics beyond the schema's technical descriptions, though they don't cover all parameter combinations.
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 provides 'direct access to any AAP Controller API endpoint with proper authentication', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a generic API access tool rather than specialized management tools like 'job_execution_management' or 'inventory_host_management'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'gateway_generic_api' which appears similar.
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 through examples showing when to use different parameters (GET with params, POST with data, etc.), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this generic tool versus the many specialized sibling tools. It mentions 'proper authentication' as a prerequisite but doesn't explain authentication requirements or when to use alternatives like 'gateway_generic_api'.
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:

[![aap-mcp-pilot MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anshulbehl/aap-mcp-pilot/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anshulbehl/aap-mcp-pilot)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![aap-mcp-pilot MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anshulbehl/aap-mcp-pilot/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anshulbehl/aap-mcp-pilot)

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/anshulbehl/aap-mcp-pilot'

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