supasidebar-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.2.3
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource, with detailed descriptions that clarify their specific purposes. There is no overlap; similar actions like search, list_links, and list_recent are clearly differentiated by scope and behavior.
Naming Consistency4/5Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_link, create_folder, toggle_sidebar). Exceptions include 'guide' (bare verb) and 'web_search' (noun_verb), but the naming is largely consistent within functional groups (list_* for collections, get_* for singular items).
Tool Count2/5With 36 tools, the server covers a wide range of features for a sidebar management app, but the count is excessive for a single server. Many tools manage distinct subdomains (ATC rules, shortcuts, spaces, folders, links), making the set feel bloated and harder for an agent to navigate efficiently.
Completeness2/5The tool set lacks basic CRUD operations for core entities: there is no update_link or delete_link, and no delete_space or update_space. While ATC rules have full CRUD, the gaps for links and spaces create dead ends that could cause agent failures.
Average 4/5 across 36 of 36 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 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 MIT License.
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.jsonto 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?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral details like whether pagination is supported, permission requirements, or output format. The added context that folders are hierarchical is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the core action. However, it could be slightly more informative without increasing length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not mention ordering, pagination, or response structure. For a list operation, this lacks completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (spaceId) with a description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists folders in a space, using the verb 'list' and specifying the resource 'folders'. It also explains that folders organize links hierarchically, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_links.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as list_links or create_folder. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions automatic title fetching but omits behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, duplicate handling, or side effects beyond creation. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds key detail. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple creation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core behavior but lacks information on return values, error handling, or what happens on duplicate URLs. It is adequate but not fully complete given the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the automatic title fetch behavior for 'name' parameter, which is not evident from the schema alone. No additional insight for other parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Save a new link to SupaSidebar', specifying the action and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like move_link or list_links, though it does not explicitly differentiate. The purpose 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides guidance on the optional 'name' parameter (automatically fetched title if omitted), which helps in deciding whether to provide it. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or any 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 but only says 'remove', implying destruction. No mention of side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements. Lacks context about what happens if keyword doesn't exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words; concise and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 1-param tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves questions about error behavior and distinction from clear_shortcut. Missing context on what happens if the shortcut is not found.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The tool description adds 'Can also be the UUID' which is already in the schema, so no significant extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool removes a custom website search shortcut by keyword or ID, which is a specific verb-resource pairing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_search_shortcut and update_shortcut.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 clear_shortcut or update_shortcut. Does not specify prerequisites or that the shortcut must exist.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It only states basic function without disclosing behavioral traits like return format, scope (all windows?), or permissions needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with action, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple tool with one optional parameter, but lacks context on return format or scope (e.g., all windows or current window). Could benefit from mentioning that it returns a list of tab objects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (1 parameter fully described). Description repeats the schema's parameter description with examples, adding no new meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'currently open browser tabs', and mentions optional filtering by browser. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_folders or list_spaces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied but not compared to other 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 bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, safe, or idempotent. There is no mention of limitations, rate limits, or side effects, leaving uncertainty for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence covering purpose and return fields, with no wasted words or redundant information. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and return values. It does not address pagination or ordering, but for a basic list tool, it is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with each parameter having a brief explanation (e.g., 'Get IDs from list_spaces'). The tool description adds that folderId is optional and that results include specific fields, but this adds limited value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists links in a specific space or folder and specifies return fields (names, URLs, tags, notes). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes from sibling tools like add_link (adds links) or search (searches across entities).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for listing links but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions getting IDs from list_spaces and list_folders, which helps context, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.
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 full burden. It discloses the basic read operation but does not elaborate on side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or response structure. For a simple list operation, this is minimally adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at two sentences (13 words). Front-loaded with the action verb and resource. Every word adds value, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple list function, the description covers the essential purpose and context. It could briefly mention the output format (e.g., array of space objects) but remains largely complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage (empty). Per guidelines, baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information, and none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all spaces'), the specific resource ('spaces'), and the scope ('in SupaSidebar'), also explaining that spaces are top-level collections for organizing links. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_space or switch_space.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description explicitly states what it does, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_folders, list_links) and provides no exclusions or context for selection. The agent has to infer from the name 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens if the shortcut does not exist. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded, containing no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential action and parameter. However, it lacks context on potential errors, return values, or prerequisites, making it less complete for complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing an example ('toggleSidebar') and directing the agent to 'get_shortcuts' for valid names, which helps in correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Remove', the resource 'keyboard shortcut binding', and the outcome 'no longer has a key combination assigned'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_shortcut' or 'remove_search_shortcut' by focusing on clearing any shortcut, not just search shortcuts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like 'update_shortcut' for reassigning or 'remove_search_shortcut' for search-specific shortcuts, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait (sorted by usage count) but omits others like pagination, rate limits, or whether it returns all tags at once. Given the tool has no parameters, the behavior is somewhat predictable, but more detail would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key information. Every word is informative with no waste, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description does not specify the return format (e.g., tag names and counts). While the tool is simple, the completeness could be improved by mentioning what fields are returned. Thus, it is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, a baseline score of 4 applies when no parameters exist, as there is nothing additional to describe about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all tags used across links, sorted by usage count. It uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'tags', and the scope 'across your links' is precise. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_links or list_folders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. There is no explicit context for usage, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the return value (new visibility state) but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or whether the toggle is client-local or persistent. This is minimal but adequate for a simple toggle.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the key action and return value. Every word earns its place. Could be slightly more detailed but remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and basic behavior. It mentions the return value. For a simple toggle, it is reasonably complete, though it could address persistence or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so the parameter semantic burden is low. The description adds no parameter info because none are needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the schema provides 100% coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (toggle), the target (SupaSidebar visibility), and the effect (show/hide), which is a specific verb-resource pair. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like launch_sidebar or get_visibility.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 get_visibility or launch_sidebar. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description should disclose behavior. It mentions creation and default icon/color, but does not cover side effects like duplicate name handling, permissions, or return value. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with verb and resource. Efficiently conveys the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's role and purpose, though it could mention uniqueness requirements or success behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds minimal extra value. It provides context about spaces but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (create), resource (space), and provides context about spaces being top-level collections for organizing links. It distinguishes from siblings like create_folder by specifying 'top-level'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating a new top-level collection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_folder, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description says 'configures multiple settings at once' but lacks details on reversibility, side effects, or dependencies. For a mutation tool without annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Slightly verbose in listing presets but efficient overall. Structure is clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Completeness is moderate: lists all presets and references get_settings. Lacks mention of whether enabling is idempotent or if there's a disable counterpart, but given simplicity and no output schema, it is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a description for 'feature'. Description adds value by listing all presets and aliases, going beyond schema to clarify acceptable values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Enable a named feature preset' with verb and resource. Lists all presets and distinguishes from 'get_settings' for viewing, differentiating from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides usage context by specifying presets and referencing get_settings for discovery. Does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but context is adequate.
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 fully disclose behavior. It indicates movement but does not mention whether the operation is reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two precise sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by essential ID retrieval and special case instructions. Excellent efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of a move operation, the description covers the main usage pattern: how to get IDs and how to handle root. The schema covers omitted parameter behavior. Lacks output details, but no output schema exists, so not required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, primarily restating the null behavior for targetFolderId. No new parameter-level insights are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Move an existing link to a different space or folder', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like add_link, open_link, and list_links by focusing on relocation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides guidance on obtaining link IDs ('Get link IDs from list_links or search') and handling the root case ('pass targetFolderId as null to move to root'). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative selections, but the action is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions fuzzy matching but lacks details on read-only nature, authentication needs, or side effects. Minimal disclosure beyond the basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is extremely concise: two short sentences front-load the purpose and matching method. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the entity, fields, and matching type. It does not detail return format or defaults, but the schema covers limit default. Adequately complete for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by listing the searchable fields in natural language, but it largely mirrors the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly specifies the tool searches across all links in SupaSidebar by name, URL, notes, or tags, with fuzzy matching. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_links (lists all) and add_link (creates).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as list_links or web_search. The description implies usage for searching links but does not state exclusions or prerequisites.
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. It discloses the key partial update behavior, which is not obvious from the schema. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error handling, or what the tool returns (no output schema provided).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds essential behavioral context. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and a prerequisite but does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, updated rule object) or handle error scenarios. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 10 parameters clearly. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond referencing list_atc_rules for the id, which is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing ATC rule.' It also clarifies the partial update behavior ('Only the fields you provide will be changed'), which distinguishes it from similar tools like add_atc_rule and delete_atc_rule.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear prerequisite: 'Get rule IDs from list_atc_rules.' While it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, the sibling tools context (add, delete, list, reorder) makes the usage context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly identifies a mutating action but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. Adequate but minimal for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds useful usage guidance. Excellent structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the description covers the main action and parameter tips, but with no output schema and no mention of return values or success indicators, completeness is only adequate. The agent might wonder what response to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by clarifying value types ('Boolean settings use true/false, string settings use the documented options'), but adds little beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Change' and resource 'SupaSidebar setting', and distinguishes from 'get_settings' which is listed as a sibling. It immediately conveys the action and scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to use 'get_settings' first to see available settings and current values, and provides guidance on boolean vs string value types. Missing explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the guidance is helpful.
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?
Indicates creation (mutation) but no details on permissions, side effects, or constraints like uniqueness. Without annotations, description carries full burden but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no superfluous information, front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Provides necessary prereq guidance. Lacks information on return values (no output schema) or potential errors. Adequate for a simple creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds cross-reference to other tools but no new semantic details for parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'create a new folder' with the resource 'inside a space', differentiating from sibling tools like create_space and list_folders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly references list_spaces and list_folders for obtaining IDs, providing clear usage context. Does not include when-not-to-use or alternatives.
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 must carry the full burden of disclosure. It states that the tool lists all rules and notes the evaluation order, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only or mention any potential side effects. For a simple list tool, the transparency is adequate but not outstanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. No redundancies or unnecessary information. Excellent conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, straightforward list), the description provides enough context about what ATC rules are and how they work. However, it lacks information about the return format (e.g., list of rule objects) since there is no output schema. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters (0 params), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable as there are none. According to guidelines, 0 params baseline is 4, and the description does not need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's action ('List all Air Traffic Control rules') and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_atc_rule and delete_atc_rule by focusing on listing. It also explains what ATC rules are and their evaluation order, adding context that helps differentiate from other list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for viewing existing rules, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when you need to see all rules). No mention of when not to use it or comparison to other tools like list_links or list_spaces. The guidance is present but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes what the tool lists but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as auth requirements, side effects, or limitations. Adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, efficiently front-loaded with the action and resource. No redundant or wasted words, earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is listed and its purpose. Could mention output format, but not essential given low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0 parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to describe.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'list' and the specific resource 'search engines and custom website search shortcuts', differentiating from siblings like get_shortcuts by focusing on search-related shortcuts. Mentions built-in and user-created types with keywords, showing specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage context by mentioning 'for use with web_search', but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like get_shortcuts or list_links. No when-not or alternative guidance provided.
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 describes a UI action (opening a window) without detailing side effects, permissions, or that it might require user interaction. Adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: what it does and when to use it. Could mention return value (e.g., no return) but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds 'jumping to a specific tab' which is already implied by the parameter. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool opens the SupaSidebar Preferences window, with an optional tab jump. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_setting' or 'toggle_sidebar'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says it is useful when the user wants to see or adjust settings visually, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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. It discloses that the tool changes a binding and requires a modifier key, but does not mention that it overwrites existing bindings or any potential side effects. The description is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and essential usage constraints. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, prerequisite (modifier requirement), and a helpful cross-reference (get_shortcuts). It is adequate, though could mention it overrides existing shortcuts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds limited value beyond the schema. It reiterates the modifier requirement already in the schema, and provides a useful pointer to get_shortcuts for the 'name' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Change a keyboard shortcut binding') with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_shortcuts (view) and clear_shortcut (delete).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context on when to use the tool: requires at least one modifier key, and advises using get_shortcuts to see available shortcut names. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool vs alternatives like add_search_shortcut or clear_shortcut.
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 describes the output fields but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a read-only operation, this is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values. The tool is simple and the context is complete for an agent to understand what it does.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by detailing what the output contains (shortcut name, display string, title, description). The baseline for zero parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists configurable keyboard shortcuts with current key bindings, and enumerates the fields shown (name, display string, title, description). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create or clear shortcuts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the tool's purpose is clear, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_settings or list_recent. Usage is implied 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.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description is adequate for a simple stateless action. Does not discuss side effects or permissions, but for a switch action, minimal disclosure is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 1-param tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and parameter sourcing. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description reinforces the parameter source (list_spaces) but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool switches spaces, explains what spaces are, and directs to list_spaces for IDs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_space or list_spaces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use (switch to a different space) and provides prerequisite (get space IDs from list_spaces). Does not explicitly exclude alternatives but context makes it clear.
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 bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the two route types and their behavior, but does not mention potential side effects like duplicate handling, validation, or limits. It is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences with no unnecessary words, front-loading the purpose and then providing key usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core concepts and provides essential references to other tools. It could mention what the response looks like, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the routeType meanings ('save rules route saved links to a space; open rules open matching URLs') and directing the agent to auxiliary tools for IDs. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Create a new Air Traffic Control rule', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes two rule types (save and open), which helps differentiate from sibling tools like list_atc_rules, update_atc_rule, or delete_atc_rule.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells the agent to use list_browser_profiles for profile IDs and list_spaces for space IDs, providing clear context for tool invocation. It does not specify when not to use this tool, but for a creation tool, the guidance is adequate.
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 describes the effect (adds a shortcut for web_search) but does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing shortcuts, permission requirements, or error conditions. Adequate for a simple create operation but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and provides a practical example. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and parameter usage. Could include behavior on duplicate keywords or success confirmation, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how the keyword is used in web_search (e.g., 'web_search engine='gh'') and the correct format for searchURL. This helps the agent understand the parameter relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'custom website search shortcut'. It explains the purpose: enabling site-specific search via web_search. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_search_shortcuts or remove_search_shortcut.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives practical guidance on forming the searchURL and provides an example. It also implies when to use this tool: for adding a new shortcut. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only states deletion. Does not disclose behavioral traits like irreversibility, permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary words. Every sentence is useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple deletion tool with one parameter. Could mention return value or confirmation, but not essential given no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with description for 'id'. Description adds value by explaining how to obtain the ID (from list_atc_rules).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Delete an ATC rule by ID' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like add_atc_rule, update_atc_rule, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Hints at prerequisite by saying 'Get rule IDs from list_atc_rules.' Provides clear context but no explicit exclusions or when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description covers key behavioral traits: it uses the macOS 'open -a' command (revealing platform dependence) and checks if the app is already running (idempotent). It does not detail the return behavior or GUI focus, but is adequate for a simple launch action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the implementation detail (macOS command) is added efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior. It could mention that the app window may be brought to front, but the current completeness is high for the scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Launch') and the resource ('SupaSidebar app'), with a specific condition ('if it's not already running'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'toggle_sidebar' or 'open_link' by focusing on starting the app, not toggling or opening a specific link.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the app is not running, but does not explicitly guide when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'toggle_sidebar' vs 'launch_sidebar'). There is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisite conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool lists profiles discovered by SupaSidebar, which is sufficient for a read-only operation. Could elaborate on return format or empty results, but acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded purpose. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. Could mention return structure but not necessary for a simple list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by explaining that the output (profile IDs) is used for ATC rules, beyond just listing profiles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'browser profiles discovered by SupaSidebar'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_installed_browsers or list_atc_rules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: to get profile IDs for ATC rules. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for the intended use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It explains the search function and available engines but omits details on side effects (e.g., read-only nature), required permissions, or rate limits. Adequate but minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with front-loaded purpose, no waste. Every sentence adds essential information (engines, shortcuts, reference to sibling tool). Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, engine options, and custom shortcut concept. It directs to a sibling for details. Complete enough for typical use, though return format is not mentioned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, the description enriches parameter meaning by listing built-in engine examples and explaining custom shortcuts. This adds value beyond the schema's basic property descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Search the web using a search engine or custom website shortcut', providing specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search' (likely internal) and 'list_search_shortcuts' (for managing shortcuts).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Directs users to 'Use list_search_shortcuts to see all available' custom shortcuts, offering clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives for different scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: returns all settings, single setting by key/alias, or filtered by category. It implies a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly mention side effects or invariants. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short, front-loaded sentences that get directly to the point with zero waste. Each sentence describes a distinct usage pattern.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description does not detail the structure of a setting object or provide examples of the return format. This leaves some ambiguity for an AI agent about what keys and values to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already describes parameters with high coverage, but the description adds significant value by explaining the impact of each argument mode (no args, key, category) and providing examples of natural-language aliases, which is beyond the schema's type-only description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves SupaSidebar settings. It distinguishes three modes (no args, key, category) and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like update_setting by focusing on retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly explains when to use each argument combination. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use the tool (e.g., for modification), though this is implied by sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it lists installed browsers, returns each browser's name (as a string for open_link's browser param), running status, and system default. It does not mention potential performance impact or mutability, but the disclosure is sufficient for a read-only listing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences long and conveys all necessary information. It avoids unnecessary detail but could be slightly tightened (e.g., 'Recognized doesn't mean installed') but overall is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple list operation, the description provides sufficient context about the return values (name, running status, default). It explains why this tool is needed (disambiguating recognized vs. installed), making it complete for its purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does 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 adds no parameter information, which is appropriate given the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists browsers actually installed on the machine, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_browser_profiles'. It specifies the exact verb 'list' and resource 'installed browsers', and provides context for when it should be used (before open_link).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises calling this tool before 'open_link' when unsure of browser availability, providing concrete guidance. It also explains the scope (27 recognized browsers) but does not explicitly state when not to use it, though the positive guidance is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains the toggle action (opens if closed, closes if open), which is transparent. However, it could add that this operation is non-destructive and has no side effects beyond visibility, which would improve transparency further.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and contains no unnecessary words. Every part earns its place: names the tool's target and explains the toggle behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It accurately describes the function. However, it could briefly note that no state is persisted or that this action does not affect other sidebar elements, to slightly improve completeness in the context of sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so no additional parameter information is needed. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, but the description is perfectly clear about the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool toggles the SupaSidebar command panel, with specific verb 'toggle' and resource 'command panel'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'toggle_sidebar' and 'launch_sidebar' by naming the exact component.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating open/close behavior, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., launch_sidebar for always opening, toggle_sidebar for sidebar). No when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the tool's output (showing tools, mappings, categories, presets) without side effects, making behavior transparent. Could be improved by explicitly stating it's a read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. The first states purpose, the second adds valuable usage guidance. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and the tool's simple nature as a discovery guide, the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool provides and when to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters defined, so baseline 4 applies. Description does not need to add parameter meaning as there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a complete guide to SupaSidebar's MCP capabilities' and enumerates what it shows (tools, mappings, categories, presets), distinguishing it from siblings that perform specific actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises 'Call this first when you're unsure which tool to use,' providing clear when-to-use context. Does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools implies this is the discovery/orientation tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is read-only ('without changing their state'), which is the key behavioral trait for a check tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no unnecessary words. The purpose is front-loaded, and every phrase adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains what the tool does and implies the return value (visibility state). A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the output format, but for a simple check tool this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so the description need not add parameter details. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and clearly identifies the resource ('sidebar and command panel visibility'). It also states that it does not change state, distinguishing it from sibling tools like toggle_sidebar.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to 'Use this instead of toggling just to check,' providing a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses fallback to default browser, error returns 'is not installed', and that browsers are recognized but not necessarily installed. Could mention return format (success/failure) but error handling is well covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with purpose, followed by critical usage note, browser list, and error guidance. Slightly long (150 words) due to enumerated browsers, but each part adds value. Structure is logical.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a side-effect action with multiple browsers and profiles, the description is comprehensive: covers parameter semantics, error recovery, prerequisites (list_installed_browsers, list_browser_profiles). No output schema, but sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage 100% (baseline 3). Description adds value: clarifies browser is REQUIRED when user names a browser, explains profileId format (bundleId:directory), and that profileId can infer browser if browser omitted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'Open', resource 'URL', and scope: in a specific browser, profile, or default. Distinguishes from siblings like add_link (adds link to space) and list_installed_browsers (listing).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to set browser/profileId: 'if the user names a browser, you MUST set the browser (and profileId) parameter'. Provides error recovery: call list_installed_browsers on 'is not installed' error. Recommends calling list_browser_profiles first for profile-specific usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the top-down evaluation and that omitted rules go to the end (via schema description). This is sufficient for a reorder operation, though it could mention if the operation is reversible or requires permissions. Overall, it provides adequate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and existence of sibling tools, the description is complete. It tells the AI everything needed to use the tool correctly: what it does, how to provide input, and the ordering semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'orderedIds' has a schema that already describes it well, but the description adds valuable context: 'Get IDs from list_atc_rules' and clarifies the ordering rule. This goes beyond the schema by providing usage guidance, making parameter semantics excellent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Change ATC rule priority order.' It specifies that rules are evaluated top-to-bottom, first match wins, which differentiates it from sibling tools like add_atc_rule, delete_atc_rule, update_atc_rule, and list_atc_rules. The verb 'reorder' combined with the resource 'ATC rules' is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use this tool (to change priority order) and provides context on evaluation order. It also tells the user to get rule IDs from list_atc_rules. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives for modifying individual rules, which slightly reduces completeness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses ordering (most recent first), default limit (50), max limit (1000), filter behavior (day sets since/until), and pagination via offset. No destructive behavior mentioned, which is appropriate for a read-only listing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is densely packed with useful information and is front-loaded with the core purpose. While it spans multiple sentences, each adds value. A minor reduction for not being more terse, but it's still efficient for the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so description should hint at return format. It doesn't mention that responses include link details, but given the tool name and sibling context, it's fairly complete in explaining filtering and pagination. A more explicit mention of the response structure would push this to 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but description adds significant value: for `limit` it says 'increase before assuming a link isn't there', for `day` it says 'sets since/until automatically', for `offset` it explains pagination use. The text contextualizes each parameter beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it lists recently opened links, ordered by most recent first. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `list_links` (likely all links) and `search` (query-based). The verb 'list' and resource 'recently opened links' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: if initial results not found, increase `limit`, use `offset`, or filter by `day`/`since`/`until`. Recommends `day` over scrolling and advises against giving up early. This is exemplary usage direction.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/auspy/supasidebar-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server