UpGrad LXP MCP Server

by aunkidwai

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes. The generic browser tools (navigate, click, get_page_content) could overlap with higher-level specific tools, but their descriptions clarify their lower-level role. The selector management tools are clearly separate. Minor overlap exists between extract_transcript and scrape_all_past_classes, but the bulk nature distinguishes them.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (list_courses, select_track, extract_transcript), but a few use bare verbs (login, navigate, click, screenshot). The style is consistent with lowercase and underscores throughout. The variation is minor and does not hinder predictability.
Tool Count3/5
With 22 tools, the server feels heavy. It combines generic browser tools, platform-specific tools, and meta-tools for selector management. While each serves a purpose, the set could be consolidated without losing functionality.
Completeness4/5
The domain of browsing courses and extracting transcripts/resources is well covered: login, listing, selection, extraction, saving, and bulk scraping are present. The absence of a logout tool is a minor gap, but closing the browser suffices. Selector management tools add robustness.
Average 3.5/5 across 22 of 22 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Click an element on the page' and does not disclose whether the tool waits for element actionability, scrolls into view, throws on missing elements, or any other behavioral traits relevant for browser automation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the action and target. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could include more useful context without becoming verbose.
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 output schema, no annotations, and one parameter, the description is too minimal. It omits key contextual details such as return behavior, error handling, and conditions for a successful click (e.g., element visibility). This is insufficient for an AI agent to reliably invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'selector' parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already documents that it accepts a CSS selector or Playwright text selector, so a baseline 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 'Click an element on the page' clearly states the action (click) and the target (an element on the page). It distinguishes from sibling tools since no other tool explicitly performs clicking, though it lacks details like left-click vs. right-click or whether it triggers navigation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as 'navigate' or 'apply_selectors'. The description simply states what it does without context on prerequisites or suitable 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does not mention side effects such as changing the current course context, requiring authentication, or any observable outcome. The phrase 'Navigate into' is vague about what the tool actually does beyond the immediate 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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It communicates the primary action efficiently, earning a perfect score for structure and conciseness.
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 too sparse. It lacks context about when to use it, what happens after navigating, or any return values. The agent is left without critical context for successful invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the parameter 'courseNameOrId' as 'Course name (partial match) or index number' with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra semantic value for the parameter, so a 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 tool's action: 'Navigate into a specific course'. The verb 'Navigate' and resource 'course' make the purpose distinct enough, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'navigate' tool or clarify what 'into' means in terms of course selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_courses' or 'navigate'. The description implies a course entry action but lacks any contextual instructions, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Navigate into' without explaining side effects, state changes, or failure conditions. It does not indicate whether this action changes the current page, requires a prior list of tracks, or throws errors for invalid input.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation, though it sacrifices important contextual details that could be added without significant verbosity.
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?
The tool exists in a browser-automation suite with siblings like list_tracks and navigate, yet the description provides no context about dependencies or expected flow. It does not mention that tracks must be listed first, how navigation is realized, or what the resulting state is, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides a complete description of the parameter 'trackNameOrId' (partial match or index number), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 'Navigate into a specific track' clearly identifies the action (navigate) and the target resource (track), which is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like select_course. However, it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling or mention alternatives, so it falls short of 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_tracks or select_course. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., browser launched, login required) or typical usage sequences, 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 full behavioral disclosure burden. It states it downloads to disk but does not mention side effects like file overwriting, where the file is saved, whether subdirectories are created, or what the return value is. This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior beyond the basic 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 a single sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any waste. It is front-loaded with the key verb and object. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
The tool operates in a broader context (browser automation, resource extraction) but the description offers no context or usage conditions. There is no output schema, and the description doesn't mention what the tool returns or how it integrates with sibling tools. Despite good parameter schema, the overall description is too sparse for an agent to confidently use it in the right scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters (url, filename, className). The description itself adds no parameter detail, but the baseline is 3 given high schema coverage. It doesn't go beyond the schema, nor does it need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('specific resource file to disk'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like extract_resources which likely handle extraction rather than downloading. It states the action and destination precisely.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context (e.g., after extract_resources), or scenarios where it should be avoided. The sibling list includes several related tools but the description offers no differentiation or usage hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read-like operation ('Extract') but does not describe output format, error handling, or the dependency on being on the correct page. It lacks details about side effects or requirements, leaving significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content.
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?
The tool is simple (1 optional param, no output schema), but the description does not explain what 'resource links/files' means concretely, what the tool returns, or that it requires prior navigation to a class detail view. This is important context for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (classNameOrId: 'Optional class name for labeling'). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Extract') and states the resource ('resource links/files') and the location ('current class detail view'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like extract_transcript and download_resource by specifying what is extracted.
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 implies the tool operates on the current class detail view but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., extract_transcript for transcripts, download_resource for downloading). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned beyond the implicit page 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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'log into' and does not mention side effects such as changing session state, whether the browser must be running, or what happens on failure. This is insufficient for a state-changing 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It conveys the essential information immediately and nothing more.
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?
The description is inadequate for correct invocation in a multi-tool environment. It omits that a browser likely must be launched first (sibling launch_browser), that login changes authentication state, and that verification can be done via check_login_status. There is also no output schema, and the return behavior (success/failure) is not disclosed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters with clear meanings ('UpGrad account email address' and 'UpGrad account password'), yielding 100% coverage. The description simply repeats 'email and password' without adding additional semantic context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is clear and specific: 'Log into UpGrad LXP with email and password' names the verb, the resource, and the authentication method. It is distinct from sibling 'check_login_status', which verifies whether a login exists.
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, prerequisites (e.g., launch_browser), or alternatives like check_login_status. The agent must infer that login likely requires a browser session and that login status can be checked afterward.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does not mention side effects (e.g., saving a file), dependencies (e.g., browser must be open), or what happens with the filename/fullPage options. The plain action is stated, but important behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the 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?
The description is incomplete for context given the lack of annotations and output schema. It does not explain when to use the tool, how the filename/fullPage parameters affect the outcome, or state that an active browser session is required. The schema covers parameter names but adds no usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (filename and fullPage), with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond that. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Take a screenshot of the current page' clearly states the action (screenshot) and the target (current page). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which are focused on browser, course, and scraping actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., needing an active browser session). It simply states the action without context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full responsibility for disclosing side effects and operational details. It only states the launch action and does not mention that a persistent browser session is created, that headless mode may be used, or any cleanup expectations.
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 sentence that conveys the core action with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool this simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient but lacks key context. It does not state what the launch returns, whether the session must be closed via close_browser, or if there are any side effects, making it only adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema alone documents the headless parameter with its type, default value, and description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, but the schema is sufficiently descriptive, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb 'Launch' and names the resource 'Firefox browser instance' with the technology 'Playwright'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like close_browser by identifying the exact action and target.
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 such as close_browser or navigate. It does not mention ordering, prerequisites, or any exclusions, leaving the usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but 'Navigate to a specific URL' adds no detail about page load behavior, state changes, or side effects. It is essentially tautological with the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is front-loaded and free of redundant words. It is as concise as possible while still conveying the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter navigation tool, the description is minimally viable but lacks any guidance on expected behavior (e.g., full page load) or relationship to sibling tools. No output schema means return values are not addressed, but that is acceptable for such a basic tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents the 'url' parameter with the description 'URL to navigate to'. The tool description repeats this without adding extra meaning such as format, examples, or edge cases, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Navigate to a specific URL' clearly states the action (navigate) and the resource (URL). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like launch_browser and click by specifying a directed URL navigation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that click can navigate via links or that launch_browser is for initial setup, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Open the details' without disclosing whether it is a read-only operation, if login is required, what the details contain, or any side effects. This is minimal for a tool with no safety annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. It earns its place fully.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain how this tool fits with list_past_classes, what 'details' includes, or whether any prerequisites exist. With no output schema or annotations, some essential 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?
The schema has 100% coverage for the parameter, including its type and description ('Class name (partial match) or index number'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Open' and resource 'details of a specific past class', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_past_classes which lists all classes. It unambiguously states the tool's functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like list_past_classes suggest a workflow, but the description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the operation without explaining the return value, whether it is read-only, or what happens if the user is not logged in. 'Check if the user is currently logged in' offers no additional behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has no parameters or annotations, but the description lacks information about the return value (e.g., boolean or user info) and any side effects. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Per rubric, a 0-param tool gets a baseline of 4; the description adds nothing about parameters because none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('login status'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'login' by focusing on status verification rather than authentication.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of using it before login, after login, or to decide whether to call 'login'. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a precondition (current class detail view) but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what happens if the precondition is not met. This lack of transparency is significant for a tool that depends on page state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and context. It contains no filler or redundant information, 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not clarify what the extracted transcript looks like (e.g., plain text, metadata) or how it relates to save_transcript, leaving minor gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the only parameter (classNameOrId) with a clear description for labeling the output, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no further meaning about this parameter, but it does not contradict or duplicate anything, so a neutral 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Extract' and the resource 'transcript text from the current class detail view'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like extract_resources by specifying transcript text, and from save_transcript by focusing on extraction rather than saving.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'from the current class detail view' implicitly tells the agent it must first navigate to that view. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like extract_resources or save_transcript, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implied navigation.
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 implies a read-only operation by saying 'Get a list', but does not state any prerequisites (e.g., login), whether the list is session-dependent, or the format/scope of the returned list. For a simple tool this is a notable 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?
A single, directly stated sentence with no extra words or fluff. It is appropriately sized and fully front-loaded, stating the action and resource immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is very simple (no parameters, no output schema), so the description is arguably sufficient to understand what it does. However, it lacks information about return structure, prerequisites like authentication, or how it fits into the broader workflow. For such a minimal tool, this is adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters and the schema's properties are empty, so the description has no parameter burden. The description adds meaningful context about the source ('from the dashboard') and what is returned (available courses), which is more than sufficient given the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a list of available courses from the dashboard'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_tracks' (tracks) and 'select_course' (selection). It is unambiguous and immediately actionable.
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. It does not say whether to call it before selecting a course, if login is required, or how it relates to 'list_tracks' or 'select_course'. The only implied usage is that it lists courses, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions navigation and listing, but does not explain side effects (e.g., changing current tab), return value, or whether login is required. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. However, 'Navigate to Past Classes tab' is an implementation detail that could be omitted for clarity, and the phrase 'list all past classes' could be more explicit about output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not state what the tool returns (if anything), whether it requires a browser or login, or how it differs from scrape_all_past_classes. For a simple tool with zero parameters, some gaps are acceptable, but this lacks essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids parameter details since there are none. No additional semantic value is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('list') and the resource ('past classes'), with a specific navigation step ('Navigate to Past Classes tab'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_courses (courses vs classes) and scrape_all_past_classes (scraping vs listing).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use case: listing past classes. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. Given sibling tools like list_courses and scrape_all_past_classes, explicit differentiation would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It indicates a write operation ('Save') but does not disclose whether files are overwritten, where files are saved, or what the return value is. This lacks important behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of seven words, immediately stating the action and target. It is perfectly concise with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple file-save tool with complete schema coverage, the description is adequate but not complete. It omits behavioral details such as overwrite behavior and return value, and there are no annotations or output schema to fill the gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (content, filename, format). The description adds only minor context via 'extracted transcript text', which aligns with content but does not meaningfully enhance understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Save'), a direct object ('extracted transcript text'), and a destination ('to a file'), making the action clear. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like extract_transcript (which extracts) and download_resource (which downloads).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used after extracting transcript text, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No clear exclusions or alternatives are 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the primary function without revealing behavior like error handling, return format, what happens with hidden elements, or whether the page must be loaded. The word 'visible' adds a small behavioral hint, but not enough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description sufficiently covers the core functionality and the selector parameter. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives, but the low complexity makes the description mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'selector' has a description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('visible text content of the current page or a specific element'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like screenshot or extract_resources. It precisely states what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (get visible text), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. There are no exclusions or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies this is a read-only operation ('View') and explains the merge behavior of defaults with overrides. However, it doesn't disclose output format or error behavior, though the tool's simplicity reduces the need for more detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and packs the useful context about merging in a compact way.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what is returned (the active selectors) and adds the merge nuance. It doesn't explicitly specify the return format, but that is likely clear from context and not critical for such a basic tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter information because there are no parameters to describe.
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 uses the clear verb 'View' with a specific resource ('currently active selectors') and explains the merge semantics, making its function distinct from siblings like discover_selectors or apply_selectors. It could have explicitly named alternatives, but the action of viewing active selectors is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to inspect the effective selector configuration, but it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like discover_selectors or apply_selectors. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full weight for behavioral disclosure. It describes the main action (extract transcripts/resources) but fails to disclose side effects such as writing files to outputDir, potential overwrites, the need for prior login/track selection, or expected duration for a bulk operation. The 'bulk' nature hints at scale but does not elaborate on behavioral implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without wordiness. Includes key qualifiers ('bulk', 'all past classes', 'current track') and specifics ('transcripts and resources'). No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only 2 optional params, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose and references the artifacts extracted, but omits operational context such as filesystem effects, prerequisites, cleanup behavior, and whether it returns a summary. Given the bulk nature, more context could be useful, but the minimal description is not severely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters have full descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond referencing 'transcripts and resources' which aligns with includeResources. No additional value is provided, but the schema already covers the details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool bulk scrapes all past classes in the current track, specifically extracting transcripts and resources. This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_past_classes (listing only) and extract_transcript/extract_resources (single-class operations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'bulk scrape all past classes in the current track' clearly implies use when you need all past classes at once rather than individually. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state prerequisites like having a track selected, so it lacks the explicit when/when-not guidance needed for a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that overrides persist across restarts and override defaults, but does not mention overwriting behavior, potential side effects, or any permissions needed. Some behavioral context is provided, but it is not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by useful context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and persistence. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of overwriting prior overrides, but overall it is complete enough for the tool's complexity.
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 fully documents the single parameter ('selectors') with an example and description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Save discovered selector overrides to disk') and the resource affected, distinguishing it from sibling tools like discover_selectors and get_selectors. It also explains the purpose of persisting overrides.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after discovery ('Save discovered selector overrides'), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_selectors or state when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing effects. 'Clean up resources' hints at side effects (e.g., releasing memory, possibly invalidating sessions), but it does not detail what cleanup entails or whether it resets browser state. It is adequate but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, direct sentence conveys the entire purpose without redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple close operation with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly says what the tool does, though it could mention irreversibility or side effects to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Close the browser instance') and the resource affected, distinguishing it from sibling tools like launch_browser, navigate, and click. The verb 'close' is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to shut down the browser, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites. There is no exclusion guidance, but the purpose is clear enough to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the inspect-and-detect nature and the per-page workflow, but does not mention side effects such as whether selectors are persisted or overwritten, or whether any state changes occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise workflow. Every word earns its place and there is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the purpose, the exact pages to use, and the follow-up tool. It does not explicitly describe return format or error conditions, but for a one-parameter tool with a clear workflow, this is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% parameter coverage with a descriptive enum and an explanation for 'current'. The description adds little beyond reinforcing the page list, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and clearly defines the resource ('current page DOM') and outcome ('auto-detect CSS selectors for UpGrad LXP elements'). It directly distinguishes the tool from siblings like apply_selectors and get_selectors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs when to use the tool ('Run this on each key page') and directs the user to follow up with apply_selectors, providing a clear workflow. It lacks when-not or alternative exclusions, but the context is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation (list) and scope (current course) but does not mention what happens if no course is selected, whether authentication is required, or what the return format includes. For a simple read-only list, this is adequate but not richly transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence (8 words) that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy, making it optimally concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete: it states what the tool lists and the scope ('current course'). However, it does not explicitly describe the return value structure (e.g., track names, IDs), which could be helpful given the absence of an output schema. This is a minor gap, keeping it from a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so the description naturally has no parameter details to add. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description adequately covers the tool's behavior without needing to compensate for missing parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'available tracks/modules within the current course'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_courses (courses vs tracks) and select_track (selection vs listing), leaving no ambiguity about its function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'within the current course' provides clear context that a course must be selected before calling this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies its use for browsing tracks prior to selecting one, making the usage intuitive.
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:

[![lxp_firefox_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aunkidwai/lxp_firefox_mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aunkidwai/lxp_firefox_mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![lxp_firefox_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aunkidwai/lxp_firefox_mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aunkidwai/lxp_firefox_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/aunkidwai/lxp_firefox_mcp'

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