APISIX-MCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly distinguished by their target resource (e.g., consumer, route, plugin) and action (create, update, delete), with minimal overlap. However, some tools like 'create_or_update_consumer' and 'update_consumer_group' could cause confusion about whether they handle similar entities, and 'delete_resource' is overly generic compared to specific delete tools like 'delete_secret'.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_route, update_service, delete_secret) with clear actions and resources. Minor deviations exist, such as 'send_request_to_gateway' using a longer phrase and 'get_all_plugin_names' including 'all', but overall the conventions are predictable and readable.
Tool Count3/5
With 32 tools, the count is on the high side for an API management server, bordering on heavy. While APISIX has many components (consumers, routes, plugins, etc.), this many tools might overwhelm agents or indicate fragmentation. It's reasonable but could benefit from consolidation or better scoping.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive CRUD and lifecycle coverage for APISIX's domain, including consumers, routes, services, plugins, SSL, and more. It supports create, update, delete, and get operations across all major resources, with no obvious gaps for core API gateway management tasks.
Average 2.7/5 across 32 of 32 tools scored. Lowest: 1.4/5.
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
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Create a route' implies a write operation but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits - no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, error conditions, or what happens when conflicts occur with existing routes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide any useful information that would help an AI agent understand or use the tool correctly, making it inefficient despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex creation tool with 2 parameters (one being a highly nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what a route is, how it fits into the API gateway, what happens after creation, or any behavioral aspects - leaving the agent to guess based solely on the schema.
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 zero semantic information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between parameters, provide examples, or clarify complex nested structures like the upstream configuration object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a route' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It doesn't specify what a 'route' is in this system, what resources it affects, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'create_stream_route' or 'update_route'.
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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus 'update_route' or 'create_stream_route', or any context about its role in the API gateway ecosystem.
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. 'Create a secret' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the tool returns. For a security-sensitive operation involving secret creation across multiple cloud providers, this is dangerously inadequate.
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 words, but this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks any supporting information that would make it useful. The structure is minimal but fails to convey necessary information about this complex tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is completely inadequate for a tool with such complexity. With no annotations, no output schema, and a description that's just two words, the agent has almost no guidance. The tool handles secret creation across multiple cloud providers with complex authentication requirements, but the description provides none of this context. The schema does heavy lifting, but the description fails to complement it meaningfully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides zero information about parameters, while the schema has 67% description coverage. The schema documents three parameters (id, manager, secret) with detailed sub-properties for different secret manager types, but the description doesn't mention any of them. For a tool with such complex nested parameters (vault, AWS, GCP configurations), the description should at least indicate what managers are supported or what the 'secret' parameter contains.
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 'Create a secret' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It doesn't specify what kind of secret is being created, what system it's created in, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'update_secret' or 'delete_secret'. While the verb 'create' is clear, the resource 'secret' is too vague without additional qualification.
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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this should be used instead of 'update_secret', what happens if a secret already exists, or any context about the secret management system. Given the complex parameter structure with multiple secret manager types, this lack of guidance 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 this is a mutating operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the response contains. For a complex creation tool, 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to convey essential information about the tool's purpose and behavior, making it inefficient for an AI agent trying to understand when and how to use this tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the input schema (with extensive nested objects for service configuration), the absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It should explain what a 'service' means in this context, what the creation entails, and what happens after creation, but provides none of this.
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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds zero information about parameters beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no 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 'Create a service' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't explain what type of service is being created, what system it operates within, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'create_route' or 'create_upstream'.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'update_service' or 'create_upstream'.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a global rule,' which implies a write operation but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the key action ('Create'). There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick scanning, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with nested parameters and no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a global rule does, how it interacts with the system, or what happens after creation. For a tool that likely affects system behavior, more context is needed to guide the agent 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 both parameters (id and plugins). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what a 'global rule ID' is used for or how plugins configuration works. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.
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 'Create a global rule' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't explain what a 'global rule' is, what it governs, or how it differs from other rule types. While it includes the verb 'create,' it lacks detail about the resource being created, making it only slightly better than a pure restatement.
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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'update_global_rule' or explain prerequisites, such as whether a rule ID must be unique. There's no context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent with no 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('Delete') without disclosing behavioral traits. It lacks details on permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, side effects, or error handling, which is critical for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Delete plugin metadata'), which is efficient but under-specified. It lacks necessary elaboration for a destructive tool, making it more sparse than appropriately concise, though it is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what plugin metadata is, the impact of deletion, or what to expect upon success/failure, leaving significant gaps in understanding for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting the single parameter 'name' as 'plugins name'. The description adds no parameter information beyond this, but with zero parameters explicitly mentioned and high schema coverage, the baseline is appropriately met without redundancy.
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 'Delete plugin metadata' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb ('Delete') and resource ('plugin metadata'), but provides no additional context about what plugin metadata is or what deletion entails, making it vague beyond the obvious.
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. It does not mention prerequisites, consequences, or sibling tools like 'create_or_update_plugin_metadata' or 'get_plugin_metadata', leaving the agent with no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the action without explaining what 'create' entails. It doesn't mention permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the response contains. The description adds minimal value beyond the obvious action.
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 at just three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a consumer group is, what happens after creation, potential side effects, or error conditions. Given the complexity implied by nested parameters and sibling tools, more context 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%, providing good documentation for both parameters (id and consumerGroup object with desc, labels, plugins). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 'Create a consumer group' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'consumer group' but provides no differentiation from sibling tools like 'create_service' or 'create_route', nor does it explain what a consumer group is in this system.
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 lacks context about prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'update_consumer_group' or 'create_or_update_consumer'. This leaves the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new plugin config' implies a write operation but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict (e.g., with existing IDs), or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to guide safe usage.
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 at four words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly. While this brevity contributes to clarity deficits in other dimensions, as a standalone text it's efficiently structured.
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 (2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a plugin config is, how it relates to other plugin tools, what the creation entails, or what to expect upon success/failure. For a tool that likely involves system configuration, this leaves critical gaps for an agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with 2 parameters documented in the schema (id and plugins). The description adds no information about parameters beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what a plugin config ID is used for, what plugins configuration entails, or how the nested structure works. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the gaps.
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 verb 'create' and resource 'plugin config', which provides a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it doesn't specify what a plugin config is or how it differs from similar tools like 'create_or_update_plugin_metadata' or 'update_plugin_config' among the siblings. The purpose is clear at a surface level but lacks differentiation from related 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'create_or_update_plugin_metadata' and 'update_plugin_config', there's no indication of whether this is for initial creation only, what prerequisites might be needed, or when to choose it over other plugin-related tools. This leaves the agent without context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by page/page_size parameters), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when no ID is provided. The 'list all resources' phrasing is misleading since parameters allow filtering.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core functionality. However, it could be more structured to separate the two modes (get by ID vs list with filters) and might benefit from slightly more detail given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and complex filtering/pagination behavior, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters, the meaning of 'resource' in context, or what the tool returns. Sibling tools suggest this is part of an API gateway system, but this context is missing.
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 well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions ID-based lookup and listing, but doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., that 'type' is required, or how filtering works with pagination).
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 retrieves resource details, but it's vague about what 'resource' means and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_credential' or 'get_secret_by_id'. It mentions two modes (by ID or list all) but lacks specificity about the resource types involved.
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 'get_credential' or 'get_secret_by_id'. The description implies it can list all resources, but doesn't clarify if this is preferred over other listing tools or when filtering is needed.
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. 'Create or update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or the response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies plugin 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 just three words, front-loading the key action and resource. There's no wasted language, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, or usage context, making it incomplete for safe and effective tool invocation in a system with many sibling tools.
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 both parameters ('name' and 'metadata') with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints, but the baseline is 3 since the schema provides adequate documentation.
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 'Create or update plugin metadata' clearly states the verb ('create or update') and resource ('plugin metadata'), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_plugin_config' or 'get_plugin_metadata', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus others that also handle plugins.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'create_plugin_config', 'get_plugin_metadata', and 'delete_plugin_metadata', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it unclear how this tool fits into the workflow.
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. 'Create an SSL certificate' implies a write operation that likely requires specific permissions and may have side effects (e.g., affecting gateway security). However, the description doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, whether the creation is idempotent, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear name and detailed schema, though this conciseness comes at the cost of missing contextual details.
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 (2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader system (e.g., Kong API Gateway context implied by sibling tools). For a creation tool with rich input schema but no behavioral context, more information is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'cert' as 'SSL certificate in PEM format'). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the tool name, which implies an 'ssl' object is needed. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate with any high-level context about required vs. optional fields.
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 'Create an SSL certificate' clearly states the action (create) and resource (SSL certificate), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_ssl' or other creation tools in the list, nor does it specify what kind of SSL certificate is being created (e.g., for a gateway, service, or route). The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing existing resources), when to choose this over 'update_ssl', or what context it applies to (e.g., for securing a specific service). Without such information, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient.
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. 'Get a secret by ID' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the secret doesn't exist. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get a secret by ID', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error cases, or how parameters interact (e.g., why 'page' and 'page_size' exist for a tool that seems to retrieve a single secret by ID). For a secret-retrieval tool, more context 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 fully documents all parameters (id, manager, page, page_size). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 'Get a secret by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('secret'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_resource' or 'get_credential'. It doesn't specify what kind of secret or what system it retrieves from, leaving ambiguity.
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 'get_resource' and 'get_credential', there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's appropriate. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't address critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 (mutation operation with 2 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't compensate for missing structured data, leaving gaps in understanding behavioral traits, parameter usage, and expected outcomes. A mutation tool requires more contextual 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 50%, with parameters 'id' and 'plugins' partially documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the tool name implying 'plugin config' updates. It doesn't clarify the relationship between 'id' and 'plugins' or provide usage examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects marginal value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a plugin config' states the action ('update') and resource ('plugin config'), which provides basic purpose. However, it's vague about what a 'plugin config' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_plugin_config' or 'update_*' tools for other resources. It meets the minimum viable threshold but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing plugin config), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_plugin_config' or 'create_or_update_plugin_metadata'. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for proper tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'update' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified attributes (e.g., partial vs. full update). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Update specific attributes of an existing service'. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, earning its place by clarifying the scope of the update.
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 (mutation tool with nested configuration objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('id' and 'service'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 verb ('update') and resource ('service') with the qualifier 'specific attributes of an existing service', which clarifies it's a partial update rather than a full replacement. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_route' or 'update_upstream'—it only tells what it does, not how it differs from other update operations in the system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a service ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_service' or other update operations. Usage is implied by the name alone, with no explicit context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the create-or-update logic but lacks critical information: what 'updated' means (full replacement vs partial merge), whether this is idempotent, what permissions are required, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without waste. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no redundant or unnecessary elements. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the update semantics, error handling, authentication needs, or what the tool returns. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool confidently beyond basic parameter passing.
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 documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain how parameters like 'plugins' or 'labels' affect the create/update behavior, or which fields are required for updates versus creation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('create or update') and resource ('consumer'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from pure creation tools like 'create_consumer_group' by specifying the update behavior when the consumer already exists. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other consumer-related tools like 'update_consumer_group' or 'delete_resource'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose this over separate create/update tools (though none exist for consumers), or any constraints like authentication requirements. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'create or update' which implies mutation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether updates are idempotent, error conditions (e.g., invalid consumer), or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action, though it could benefit from additional context given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and nested parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'credential' entails in this context, what the tool returns, error handling, or security implications. Given the complexity, more guidance is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (username, id, credential) with their properties. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., id identifies the credential, username identifies the consumer) or provide usage examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('create or update') and resource ('credential for a consumer'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_secret' or 'update_secret' which might handle similar resources, nor does it explain what type of credential this is (e.g., API key, OAuth token).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., consumer must exist), when to choose create vs. update, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'create_secret' or 'update_secret' that might handle credentials differently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates or updates a proto, implying mutation, but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core operation and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, parameter explanations, and usage guidelines, failing to provide enough information for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with 'id' and 'proto' parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain 'proto' structure or 'id' usage). Since schema coverage is moderate, the baseline score of 3 applies, as the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('create or update') and resource ('proto'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_route' or 'update_service' that might handle similar operations on different resources, so it's not fully specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'create_route' or 'update_service', leaving the agent with no usage context beyond the basic operation.
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 the upsert behavior (create or update based on existence), which is useful, but fails to cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether updates overwrite or merge configurations, error handling for invalid inputs, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with complex parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence: 'Create a stream route, if the stream route already exists, it will be updated.' It wastes no words and immediately conveys the core functionality (upsert), making it efficient for an agent to parse and understand the tool's primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, idempotency), usage context compared to siblings, and output expectations. For a tool that can significantly alter system state, more comprehensive guidance is needed to ensure safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters ('id' and 'route') and their nested properties. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'id' might be used to determine if a stream route exists for updates, but this is not explicitly stated. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a stream route, if the stream route already exists, it will be updated.' It specifies the verb ('create or update') and resource ('stream route'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'create_route' or 'update_route', which handle similar resources but with different semantics (create-only or update-only vs. upsert).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'create_route' (for creation only) or 'update_route' (for updates only), nor does it specify prerequisites, such as needing an existing stream route ID for updates. Without this context, an agent might misuse it or overlook more specific 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 full burden but only states the action ('create') without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention required permissions, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns the created upstream object). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex creation tool with 2 parameters (one being a highly nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the expected input structure, required fields beyond 'nodes', or what the tool returns upon success, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema without contextual guidance.
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. The description adds minimal value by hinting at 'load balancing settings', which relates to some parameters like 'type' and 'nodes', but doesn't explain parameter relationships or provide examples beyond what the schema already specifies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('create') and resource ('upstream service') with a specific feature ('load balancing settings'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_upstream' by specifying creation rather than modification, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools like 'create_service' or 'create_route'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_service' or 'update_upstream'. The description mentions 'load balancing settings' but doesn't clarify if this is the primary tool for load balancing configuration or if there are prerequisites (e.g., needing nodes defined first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete', implying a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical details such as permissions required, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, or any side effects (e.g., impact on associated consumers). This is a significant gap for a destructive tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the core action and target. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, auth needs), expected outcomes, or error handling, which are crucial for safe and correct usage in this 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%, with clear parameter descriptions ('credential id' and 'consumer username'), so the schema provides adequate documentation. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond this, such as format examples or relationships between parameters, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a credential for a consumer'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_resource' or 'delete_secret', which might also handle deletion operations in this system, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing credential), exclusions, or refer to sibling tools like 'delete_resource' that might handle similar deletions, 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' clearly indicates a destructive operation, the description lacks crucial details: it doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether there are confirmation prompts, or what happens to dependent resources. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise - a single sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and gets straight to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical context like deletion consequences, error conditions, return values, or how this tool relates to other delete operations in the system. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects of this potentially dangerous 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 schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. This meets the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target ('a resource by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other delete operations in the sibling list (delete_credential, delete_plugin_metadata, delete_secret), which all follow similar patterns but target different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'delete_credential' and 'delete_secret' available, there's no indication of how this general 'delete_resource' differs from those more specific delete operations or when one should be preferred over the other.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action ('Delete') but doesn't mention critical aspects like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or returns confirmation. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just four words, front-loading the core action and resource. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it efficient for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral traits (permanence, permissions), usage context, or what happens after deletion. Given the complexity and risk of deletion operations, more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'by ID' which aligns with the 'id' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'manager' parameter or its enum values. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters well, so the description adds minimal value beyond what's in the structured data.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a secret by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_credential' or 'delete_resource' that perform similar deletion operations on different resource types, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the secret ID), when deletion is appropriate, or how it differs from other deletion tools like 'delete_credential' or 'delete_resource' 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying it's a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination for 'all credentials', error conditions, or what happens if 'id' is omitted. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Get all credentials or a specific credential for a consumer'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., format of credentials list), error handling, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that could return multiple items or require specific inputs, more context is needed to guide the agent 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 both parameters ('id' and 'username') with basic descriptions. The description adds marginal value by implying 'id' is optional (for 'a specific credential') and 'username' is required (for 'a consumer'), but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or relationships between parameters beyond what the schema specifies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('credentials'), specifying it can retrieve either 'all credentials or a specific credential for a consumer'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_or_update_credential' and 'delete_credential' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get_* tools like 'get_resource' or 'get_secret_by_id' in terms of 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a consumer username), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'get_resource' or 'get_secret_by_id'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get metadata' but doesn't describe what metadata includes, whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens if the plugin doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what metadata is returned, potential errors, or behavioral traits like idempotency. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper use without relying on trial and error.
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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'name' documented as 'plugins name'. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'metadata for a specific plugin', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_all_plugin_names' (which lists names) and 'get_plugin_schema' (which retrieves schema). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_or_update_plugin_metadata', which is a write operation, though the verb 'Get' implies read-only.
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 'get_all_plugin_names' for listing names or 'get_plugin_schema' for schema details, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing the plugin name first. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are formatted, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'plugin schema' contains, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like error handling. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools, more context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions retrieving schema 'by name', which aligns with the required 'name' parameter, but doesn't explain the optional 'type' parameter or its enum values. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'plugins schema', specifying it can retrieve all schemas or a specific one by name. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_plugin_names' or 'get_plugin_metadata', which reduces clarity about when to use each.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_plugin_names' or 'get_plugin_metadata'. The description implies usage for retrieving schema information but offers no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions sending requests 'in parallel' (implied from the schema), but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is read-only or mutating, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the response looks like. For a tool that sends requests to a gateway, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of sending requests to a gateway (potentially mutating operations, authentication needs, response formats) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after sending requests, what kind of responses to expect, or any operational constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'requests' parameter and its nested properties. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (like explaining what types of requests are appropriate or format examples). With complete schema coverage, 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('send a request or multiple requests') and target ('to the APISIX gateway'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools that might also interact with the gateway (like create_route or update_service), which would require explicit differentiation for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for managing APISIX resources (create_route, update_service, etc.), there's no indication whether this is for testing, debugging, or operational requests, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether changes are partial or complete, permission requirements, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after the update, what attributes can be modified, error conditions, or how this differs from creation operations. Given the complexity of updating a consumer group configuration, more context 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters 'id' and 'consumerGroup' are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying these update 'specific attributes' but doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships or usage patterns.
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 ('Update') and resource ('specific attributes of an existing consumer group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_consumer_group' or other update tools, which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_consumer_group' or other update operations. It mentions 'existing consumer group' which implies a prerequisite, but offers no explicit usage context, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates attributes but doesn't describe what happens if the ID doesn't exist, whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, rate limits, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('update') and resource ('global rule'). There is zero waste—every word contributes to the purpose without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of updating a global rule with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and what constitutes a 'global rule' versus other resources. For a mutation tool in a server with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('id' and 'plugins'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what a 'global rule' is or how 'plugins configuration' works in context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.
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 ('update') and resource ('existing global rule'), specifying it modifies 'specific attributes'. It distinguishes from 'create_global_rule' by focusing on updates rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_route' or 'update_service' in terms of what a 'global rule' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing rule ID), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_global_rule' or 'delete_resource'. Usage is implied only by the verb 'update', with no explicit context or alternatives stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states it's an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a complex mutation tool, this is inadequate.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update specific attributes') and resource ('existing route'), making it immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails behaviorally (e.g., partial vs. full updates, idempotency), return values, or error conditions. Given the complexity implied by the schema, more context 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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying 'id' and 'route' are involved, matching the schema. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('existing route'), specifying it modifies 'specific attributes' rather than creating or replacing entirely. It distinguishes from sibling 'create_route' by focusing on updates, though doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools like 'update_service' or 'update_upstream'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a route ID), compare with sibling tools like 'create_route' or other update tools, or indicate scenarios where this is appropriate versus not.
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 'update' which implies mutation, but doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified attributes, or error conditions. For a mutation tool handling sensitive data like secrets, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool handling sensitive secrets with 3 parameters, 67% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address security implications, error handling, what constitutes a 'secret', or what the update operation returns. The context demands more comprehensive guidance.
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 67%, and the description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain what 'specific attributes' can be updated or how the three parameters (id, manager, secret) relate to the update operation. The description provides no additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for moderate schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the target ('specific attributes of an existing secret'), which is more specific than just the tool name. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'create_secret' or other update tools like 'update_consumer_group' or 'update_service', which would require mentioning what makes secret updates unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_secret' or 'delete_secret', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing secret ID. It only states what the tool does, not when or why to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or potential side effects. For a security-related mutation tool, this lack of behavioral context is problematic.
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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and follows the principle of front-loading the essential 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, what permissions are required, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of SSL certificate management and the security implications, more contextual information 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters (id and ssl configuration object) thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying partial updates ('specific attributes'), which is already suggested by the schema's structure. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('specific attributes of an existing SSL certificate'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'create_ssl' by specifying it's for existing certificates, though it doesn't differentiate from other update tools like update_route or update_service beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the certificate ID), when not to use it, or what happens if the certificate doesn't exist. With multiple sibling update tools, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether it's idempotent, what permissions are required, if it validates inputs, how it handles partial updates, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex mutation tool with 2 parameters (one being a deeply nested configuration object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'specific attributes' means in practice, how updates are applied, or what the tool returns. The agent lacks critical context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'id' identifies the upstream and 'upstream' contains attributes to update. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and target ('specific attributes of an existing upstream'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from 'create_upstream' by specifying 'existing', but doesn't differentiate from other update tools like 'update_service' or 'update_route' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an upstream ID), compare with sibling tools like 'create_upstream' or 'delete_resource', or specify use cases for partial versus full updates.
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. 'Get all plugin names' implies a read operation but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns a list format, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description 'Get all plugin names' is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on return format, error handling, or usage context. For a read-only tool with no structured output, more completeness would be beneficial, but it meets the basic threshold.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't discuss non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all plugin names' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('plugin names'), with 'all' indicating comprehensive scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_plugin_metadata' or 'get_plugin_schema' by focusing specifically on names only. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_plugin_metadata' and 'get_plugin_schema', there's no indication of whether this tool is for listing names only versus retrieving detailed metadata. No explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations are included.
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:

[![apisix-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/api7/apisix-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/api7/apisix-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![apisix-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/api7/apisix-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/api7/apisix-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/api7/apisix-mcp'

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