MCP Kafka Schema Reg

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, causing significant ambiguity. For example, 'clear_context_batch' and 'clear_multiple_contexts_batch' are similar, and there are numerous 'interactive' variants (e.g., 'create_context_interactive' vs. 'create_context') that differ only in user interaction style rather than core functionality. Tools like 'get_task_progress' and 'get_task_status' are explicitly noted as aliases, adding redundancy. The high count exacerbates confusion, making it difficult for an agent to reliably select the right tool without deep domain knowledge.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., 'create_context', 'delete_subject', 'list_registries'), which is clear and predictable. However, there are minor deviations, such as 'ping' (a single verb without a noun) and 'guided_' prefixes for workflows (e.g., 'guided_schema_evolution'), which slightly break the pattern. Overall, the naming is largely consistent and readable, with only a few outliers.
Tool Count1/5
With 82 tools, the count is extremely high and feels overwhelming for a schema registry server. Many tools appear redundant (e.g., multiple 'interactive' versions, backward-compatibility tools with resource alternatives, and aliases like 'get_task_progress' and 'get_task_status'). This excessive number suggests poor scoping, as a more focused set could cover the domain effectively without such bloat, likely causing confusion and inefficiency for agents.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for Kafka Schema Registry operations, including CRUD for schemas, contexts, and subjects, as well as advanced features like bulk operations, migrations, workflows, and compliance checks. There are no obvious gaps; it supports everything from basic schema registration to complex disaster recovery and interactive workflows, ensuring agents can handle a wide range of tasks without dead ends.
Average 2.9/5 across 82 of 82 tools scored. Lowest: 1.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 6, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe what the tool actually does beyond the vague 'generate' action—whether it creates persistent data, requires permissions, has side effects, or returns structured output. For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, this lack of transparency is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is technically concise, but this brevity comes at the cost of clarity. It's front-loaded but under-specified, making it inefficient in conveying necessary information. While not verbose, it lacks the substance needed for effective tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (three undocumented parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'resource URI templates' are, how they're used, what the output looks like, or any behavioral characteristics. This leaves the agent without enough information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (context, registry_name, subject) are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they influence template generation. This leaves all parameters completely unexplained, failing to compensate for the schema's deficiencies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Generate resource URI templates for your specific configuration' restates the tool name 'generate_resource_templates' without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'resource URI templates' are, what 'specific configuration' refers to, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'list_available_resources' or 'suggest_resource_for_tool'. This is a tautology with minimal added value.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. With many sibling tools related to resources, contexts, and schemas, the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent guessing about when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'compare' but gives no insight into what the comparison entails (e.g., differences, similarities, validation), whether it's read-only or has side effects, what output format to expect, or any performance or permission considerations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently states the core action, though this brevity contributes to its lack of detail in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'compare' means operationally, what the inputs represent, or what the agent should expect as a result, leaving critical gaps for tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'two registries' and 'contexts' but fails to clarify the four parameters (source_context, source_registry, target_context, target_registry), their relationships, formats, or what 'null' for target_context implies. No parameter semantics are provided beyond the tool name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Compare contexts across two registries' restates the tool name almost verbatim (compare_contexts_across_registries), making it tautological. It provides a minimal verb+resource combination but lacks specificity about what 'compare' entails or what constitutes a 'context' in this system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'compare_registries' and 'list_contexts' available, the description fails to differentiate this tool's specific use case or indicate any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('update') without any details on permissions required, side effects (e.g., if changes are destructive or reversible), rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, failing to inform the agent about critical operational aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Update global configuration settings.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification, as it omits necessary details for effective tool use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'global configuration' entails, how updates affect the system, or what the tool returns, making it inadequate for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (compatibility, context, registry) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—not their meanings, formats, or examples—leaving them completely undocumented. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update global configuration settings' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update_global_config'. It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('global configuration settings'), but provides no differentiation from sibling tools like 'update_mode', 'update_subject_config', or 'bulk_configuration_update', leaving the exact scope and purpose vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'get_global_config' for reading or 'bulk_configuration_update' for batch operations. This lack of usage context makes it misleading for an agent to select the correct tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'set' without explaining effects, permissions required, whether it's destructive, or response behavior. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification rather than clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address behavioral implications, parameter meaning, or usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. It does not explain what 'registry_name' represents, valid values, or its role in setting the default. With one required parameter undocumented, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set the default registry' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'set_default_registry' without adding meaningful detail. It specifies the verb 'set' and resource 'default registry', but lacks specificity about what this action entails or how it differs from similar operations like 'update_global_config' or 'update_mode' among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'update_global_config', 'get_default_registry', and 'list_registries', the description fails to clarify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'will elicit resolution preferences from the user,' which suggests interactive behavior and potential user prompts, but lacks details on permissions required, side effects (e.g., does it modify data?), error handling, or response format. For a tool with 5 parameters and no 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Both sentences are relevant, with no wasted words. However, the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly, and overall it's efficient but slightly fragmented.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on what compatibility means, how elicitation works, what the tool returns, or how parameters interact. For an interactive tool with significant input requirements, this leaves too many gaps for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds no information about any parameters (subject, schema_definition, etc.), failing to compensate for the coverage gap. Parameters like 'registry' and 'schema_type' are entirely unexplained, leaving their purpose and usage unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool performs 'Interactive compatibility checking with elicitation for resolution options,' which indicates a checking function with user interaction. However, it's vague about what exactly is being checked (schema compatibility? system compatibility?) and doesn't specify the resource or domain. It distinguishes from sibling 'check_compatibility' by mentioning interactivity, but the purpose remains somewhat ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: it mentions the tool is used 'When compatibility issues are found,' implying a reactive use case, but doesn't specify when to choose this over the non-interactive 'check_compatibility' sibling or other alternatives. No explicit when-not scenarios or prerequisites are provided, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Docker-based tools' which hints at execution environment, but doesn't describe what the migration actually does (e.g., copies data, transforms schemas, updates registries), whether it's destructive, what permissions are required, or how long it might take. For a complex 7-parameter migration tool, this leaves significant behavioral unknowns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, it's arguably too concise for a complex migration tool with 7 parameters and no other documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex migration tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'context' migration entails, what Docker tools are used, what the migration process does, what success/failure looks like, or how to interpret the numerous configuration parameters. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'context', 'source_registry', or 'target_registry' mean, nor the purpose of flags like 'dry_run', 'migrate_all_versions', or 'preserve_ids'. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'migrates an entire context using Docker-based tools', which provides a verb ('migrate') and resource ('entire context') but lacks specificity about what 'context' means in this domain or what Docker tools are involved. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'migrate_schema' by focusing on 'context' rather than 'schema', but doesn't clarify how it differs from 'migrate_context_interactive' or 'bulk_schema_migration'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'migrate_context_interactive', 'bulk_schema_migration', or 'guided_schema_migration'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or constraints that would help an agent choose this specific migration approach over others available in the sibling tool list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'interactive' and 'elicitation,' hinting at user prompts or step-by-step behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's read-only or destructive, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens during migration. The description adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clarifying sentence. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be more structured by explicitly listing key behaviors or parameters. Overall, it's efficient but slightly under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, mutation tool), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'context migration' involves, the return values, error conditions, or how elicitation works. For a tool with such rich input schema and no structured support, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description doesn't mention any parameters or their meanings, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. With 7 parameters (2 required), the agent receives no guidance on what 'context,' 'dry_run,' 'migrate_all_versions,' etc., mean or how they affect the migration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool performs 'Interactive context migration with elicitation for missing preferences,' which provides a general purpose (migrating context interactively) but lacks specificity about what 'context' means or what resources are involved. It distinguishes from sibling 'migrate_context' by mentioning interactivity and elicitation, but the distinction is somewhat vague without explaining what 'context' migration entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage 'When migration preferences are not specified,' suggesting it's for cases with missing configuration, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'migrate_context' or other migration tools in the sibling list. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent with minimal direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool handles regular and workflow responses and advances steps automatically, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if it modifies data), error handling, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded and avoid redundancy. Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second clarifies response types, and the third explains workflow behavior, making it efficient with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (mutation tool with no annotations, 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks critical details such as parameter explanations, error conditions, or return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any parameters (request_id, response_data, complete) beyond what the schema provides (e.g., types and titles). No details on format, constraints, or examples are given, failing to add meaningful semantics for the 3 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Submit[s] a response to an elicitation request,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_elicitation_request' or 'list_elicitation_requests,' leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions handling 'regular elicitation responses and multi-step workflow responses' and automatic advancement, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cancel_elicitation_request' or 'get_elicitation_status.' There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose critical traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies configurations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be more specific to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a configuration update tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or behavioral aspects like idempotency or constraints, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with 4 parameters (subject, compatibility, context, registry) documented only by titles. The description adds no semantic information about these parameters, such as what 'compatibility' means, what 'context' or 'registry' refer to, or how they affect the update. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb ('Update') and resource ('configuration settings for a specific subject'), which clarifies the basic action. However, it's vague about what 'configuration settings' entail (e.g., compatibility, context, registry) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_subject_mode' or 'bulk_configuration_update', leaving ambiguity about scope and differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'update_subject_config' over 'update_subject_mode' or 'bulk_configuration_update', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an existing subject. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' implies a mutation, but fails to describe permissions needed, side effects, error conditions, or what the update entails (e.g., is it reversible, does it affect other data?). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameters, behavior, output, and differentiation from siblings, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (subject, mode, context, registry) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their formats, allowed values, or how they interact, leaving them entirely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the mode for a specific subject' clearly states the action (update) and target (mode for a subject), which is adequate. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'update_mode' or 'get_subject_mode', leaving ambiguity about its specific role in the broader toolset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'update_mode' and 'get_subject_mode' present, the description offers no context on prerequisites, differences, or appropriate scenarios for invocation, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions checking compatibility but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it modifies data, what permissions are needed, or how results are returned. This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without waste. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how compatibility is determined, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify what 'subject', 'schema_definition', 'schema_type', 'registry', or 'context' mean in this compatibility check context, leaving parameters largely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as checking schema compatibility with the latest version, which is clear but vague. It specifies the action ('check') and resource ('schema'), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'check_compatibility_interactive' or 'guided_schema_evolution', leaving ambiguity about scope and method.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'check_compatibility_interactive' and 'guided_schema_evolution', there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new schema context' which implies a write operation, but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error handling, or what 'new' entails (e.g., overwriting, uniqueness). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a creation tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'schema context' is, how parameters are used, what happens on success/failure, or how this differs from interactive versions. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'schema context' but doesn't explain the 'context' parameter (a required string) or the optional 'registry' parameter. No additional meaning is provided beyond the basic action, failing to clarify parameter roles or formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new schema context' clearly states the action (create) and resource (schema context), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_context_interactive' or explain what a 'schema context' is specifically, making it somewhat vague compared to more specific alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_context_interactive' or other context-related tools such as 'list_contexts' or 'delete_context'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description does not specify if this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on related schemas), or what happens upon success/failure. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a destructive tool with no structured safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It immediately states the tool's action and resource, which is efficient for quick comprehension, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like behavioral risks, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective use in a complex environment with many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'schema context' but does not clarify the 'context' parameter's meaning or the optional 'registry' parameter's role (e.g., whether it specifies a target registry or defaults to a global one). Without this, the agent lacks semantic understanding beyond the bare schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a schema context' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('schema context'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'schema context' entails or how it differs from similar resources like 'context' in sibling tools (e.g., clear_context_batch, migrate_context), which reduces clarity. It avoids tautology but remains vague in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like clear_context_batch, clear_multiple_contexts_batch, and migrate_context that might handle similar resources, there is no indication of when delete_context is preferred, such as for single deletions versus batch operations or irreversible actions. This absence of context leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'export' but fails to explain what that entails—whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format is, or any side effects. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly. It's appropriately sized for its content, though the brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what 'export' means in practice, the parameter roles, or the expected output, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'context', 'include_config', 'include_metadata', 'include_versions', or 'registry' mean or how they affect the export, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export all subjects within a context' clearly states the action (export) and target (subjects within a context), but it's vague about what 'export' entails (e.g., format, destination, or purpose). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'export_global' or 'export_subject', leaving ambiguity about scope and alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'export_global' or 'export_subject'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, offering no help in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool exports a schema but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if it modifies data, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling export tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'schema' is in this context, how parameters interact, or what the export produces, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'specified format' which hints at the 'format' parameter but doesn't explain the other 4 parameters (context, registry, subject, version) or their relationships. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides through property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Export') and resource ('a single schema'), but is vague about what 'schema' refers to in this context and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'export_context', 'export_global', or 'export_subject'. It specifies 'in the specified format' which adds some detail but remains generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'export_context' or 'export_subject'. The description implies it's for exporting schemas, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's basic intent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by sibling tools like 'submit_elicitation_response' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what details are returned, how errors are handled, or the tool's role in the broader workflow, making it incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the input schema provides no descriptions for the 'request_id' parameter. The tool description adds no information about what 'request_id' is, its format, or where to obtain it. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get details of a specific elicitation request' clearly states the verb ('Get details') and resource ('elicitation request'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'details' entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_elicitation_status', which suggests there might be overlapping or related functionality that isn't clarified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_elicitation_status' or 'list_elicitation_requests'. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a request ID from a previous operation, or contextual cues for its application.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'detailed information' but does not specify what that entails (e.g., format, scope, or limitations), nor does it address permissions, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (information retrieval with one parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, how to use the parameter, or what the return values are, making it incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('operation_name') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention parameters at all. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the parameter's purpose and usage unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get[s] detailed information about MCP operations and their metadata,' which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('MCP operations and their metadata'). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_mcp_compliance_status_tool' or 'get_registry_info,' which also retrieve information, making the purpose somewhat vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that retrieve information (e.g., 'get_mcp_compliance_status_tool,' 'get_registry_info'), there is no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool's use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get comprehensive statistics' but doesn't clarify what 'comprehensive' means, whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of statistics gathering, zero annotation coverage, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what statistics are returned, how they're formatted, or any behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about what 'registry' or 'include_context_details' mean. Without any parameter semantics in the description, the agent must rely solely on schema property names, which is insufficient for understanding parameter purposes or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get comprehensive statistics about a registry' clearly states the action (get) and resource (registry statistics), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'comprehensive statistics' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_registry_info' or 'compare_registries', leaving ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_registry_info', 'compare_registries', and 'list_registries', there's no indication of how this tool differs in context or when it's the appropriate choice, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'detailed progress' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what data is returned, if it's read-only, potential errors, or performance aspects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a progress-checking tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, and how it fits with sibling tools, making it insufficient for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter 'task_id' undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'task_id' is, its format, or how to obtain it. This doesn't compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get detailed progress for a statistics task' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('progress for a statistics task'), but it's vague about what 'statistics task' entails and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_task_progress' or 'get_task_status'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as how it differs from 'get_task_progress' or 'list_statistics_tasks'. Without such information, usage is ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions migration but fails to describe critical traits like whether it's a destructive operation, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and risks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly stating the core action and resources. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the migration process, output format, error handling, or how parameters interact, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool with significant operational impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only vaguely references 'schema' and 'registries', without detailing what parameters like 'subject', 'versions', or 'preserve_ids' mean or how they affect migration. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('migrate') and resource ('schema') with source and destination context ('from one registry to another'), which provides a basic understanding. However, it lacks specificity about what migration entails (e.g., copying, transforming, or updating schemas) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'bulk_schema_migration' or 'guided_schema_migration', making it vague in comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'bulk_schema_migration' or 'guided_schema_migration'. The description mentions registries but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios for migration, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a write operation, requires permissions, has side effects, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and potential mutations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's name, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, return values, and usage context, making it insufficient for effective tool invocation in a complex environment with many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'subject', 'schema_definition', or other parameters mean, their roles, or how they interact, leaving semantics entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Register a new schema version' clearly states the action (register) and resource (schema version), but it's vague about what 'register' entails—does it create, update, or validate? It distinguishes from siblings like 'bulk_schema_update' or 'migrate_schema' by focusing on individual registration, but lacks specificity on scope or system context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include 'register_schema_interactive', 'bulk_schema_update', and 'migrate_schema', but the description offers no comparison, prerequisites, or context for selection, leaving usage unclear.
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 the tool 'suggests' resources, implying a read-only, advisory function, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, how suggestions are prioritized, if it accesses external data, or what format the output takes. The description is too minimal to adequately inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a tool for suggesting replacements), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'resource' is, how suggestions are generated, what the output looks like, or any dependencies. For a tool that likely involves reasoning about tool compatibility or alternatives, this minimal description leaves significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'tool_name' undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'tool_name' should be (e.g., the name of a removed tool, format requirements, or examples). With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's semantics unclear to the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as suggesting resources for removed tools, which is clear but vague. It specifies the action ('suggest') and target ('appropriate resource'), but doesn't explain what constitutes a 'resource' or how suggestions are generated. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on tool replacement rather than direct operations, though the distinction isn't explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., only after a tool is removed), exclusions, or recommend other tools for related needs. With many sibling tools for configuration, migration, and workflow management, the lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation/write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'mode' means, what values are valid, what 'registry' and 'context' parameters do, or what happens after the update.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. Parameters 'mode', 'registry', and 'context' are completely undocumented in both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the mode of the Schema Registry' clearly states the action (update) and target (mode of Schema Registry), which is specific enough to understand the basic function. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_subject_mode' or 'update_global_config', leaving ambiguity about what exactly is being updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'update_subject_mode', 'update_global_config', and 'get_mode', there's no indication of whether this updates a global registry mode, a specific context mode, or something else, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is an update operation (implying mutation), it doesn't describe critical behaviors: whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, potential side effects, error handling, or response format. The mention of 'security policies, retention settings, and access controls' hints at sensitive operations but lacks explicit warnings or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds supporting detail. There's no wasted verbiage, and it efficiently communicates the tool's scope and supported areas. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from usage notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a bulk update tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, error conditions, and output expectations. For a tool that likely involves significant system changes, this level of documentation is inadequate and leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It implies parameters related to 'config_type' (e.g., security policies) and 'target_type' (e.g., schemas or contexts), but doesn't explain what 'pattern', 'settings', or 'dry_run' mean in this context. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving most parameters semantically unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update configuration settings across multiple schemas or contexts.' It specifies the verb ('update'), resource ('configuration settings'), and scope ('across multiple schemas or contexts'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bulk_schema_update' or 'update_global_config', which appear related but have different scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions supported areas ('security policies, retention settings, and access controls'), but this is more about functionality than usage context. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'bulk_schema_update' or 'update_global_config'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'preview and rollback capabilities', which hints at safety features, but doesn't clarify whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the migration process entails. The description is too vague about actual behavior beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three short sentences that each add value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key features. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could benefit from slightly more structure to separate functionality from capabilities.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex 7-parameter migration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'migrate' actually means operationally, what happens to existing schemas, how conflicts are resolved, what the output looks like, or how preview/rollback work. The description leaves too many critical questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 7 parameters, the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'pattern-based selection' (hinting at 'schema_pattern') and 'maintains schema IDs' (hinting at 'preserve_ids'), but doesn't explain the purpose of source/target contexts/registries or the dry_run parameter. Most parameters remain semantically undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as migrating schemas between contexts or registries with pattern-based selection and ID preservation. It uses specific verbs ('migrate', 'maintains', 'includes') and identifies the resource ('schemas'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'migrate_schema', 'bulk_schema_update', or 'bulk_schema_cleanup'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions capabilities like preview and rollback, but doesn't specify scenarios where bulk migration is preferred over single-schema migration ('migrate_schema') or other bulk operations. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to siblings are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'interactive guidance' and 'Supports compatibility settings, naming conventions, and metadata updates', which gives some context about what the tool does. However, it lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or what 'interactive guidance' entails. For a bulk update tool with no annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with three sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the subsequent sentences list key features. There is no unnecessary information, and it is front-loaded with the main action. A minor deduction for not being maximally efficient, as it could integrate features more tightly, but overall it's clear and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a bulk update tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness, permissions), parameter meanings, expected outputs, and error handling. The mention of 'interactive guidance' and features provides some context, but it's insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (batch_size, dry_run, pattern, update_type) have descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'Pattern matching supported (e.g., test-*, deprecated-*)', which loosely relates to the 'pattern' parameter, and 'compatibility settings' might relate to 'update_type'. However, it doesn't explain what 'batch_size', 'dry_run', or 'update_type' mean, their valid values, or how they interact. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update schemas in bulk with interactive guidance.' It specifies the verb ('Update'), resource ('schemas'), and scope ('in bulk'), and mentions interactive guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bulk_schema_cleanup' or 'bulk_schema_migration', which prevents a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Supports compatibility settings, naming conventions, and metadata updates' and 'Pattern matching supported', but these are features, not usage instructions. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'bulk_schema_cleanup' or 'bulk_schema_migration'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'application-level batching' and MCP compliance, hinting at operational constraints, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects (e.g., data loss), or response behavior. The warning icon suggests caution but without elaboration, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a compliance note. Both sentences are relevant, with no wasted words. However, the lack of detail on parameters and usage slightly undermines efficiency, as it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a batch operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses key details: parameter meanings, behavioral risks (e.g., data deletion), and expected outcomes. The MCP compliance note adds some context but does not suffice for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain any of the 4 parameters (context, delete_context_after, dry_run, registry), their purposes, or how they affect the operation. This leaves critical input semantics unclear, failing to add value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Clear all subjects') and target resource ('in a context'), specifying it uses 'application-level batch operations'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'clear_multiple_contexts_batch' by focusing on a single context, though not explicitly named. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what 'subjects' are.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_context' or 'clear_multiple_contexts_batch' is provided. The description mentions 'application-level batching' and MCP compliance, which implies a specific technical context, but does not state when this approach is preferred or required over other methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'application-level batching' and compliance, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a destructive operation (implied by 'clear'), what permissions are needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'clear' actually means in practice. The warning symbol adds some caution but lacks specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief with two sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second adds important compliance context. There's no unnecessary repetition or fluff, though it could be more informative given the complexity of the operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a batch operation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how batch operations work, error scenarios, or provide enough context for safe and effective use despite the operation's apparent complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'contexts' should contain, what 'registry' refers to, the meaning of 'delete_contexts_after' versus 'dry_run', or how these interact. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Clear multiple contexts') and target ('in a registry'), with the verb 'clear' being specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clear_context_batch' or 'delete_context', leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific batch operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'clear_context_batch' or 'delete_context', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual note is about 'application-level batching' for compliance, which doesn't help with tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'elicitation for metadata' and that it 'will elicit organizational information from the user' when metadata is missing, which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are needed, whether it's destructive, or what the response looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the tool's function, and the second explains its interactive behavior. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and complexity implied by 'interactive' and 'elicitation', the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'context' is, how elicitation works, what metadata fields are involved, or what the tool returns. This leaves too many unknowns for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'metadata' and 'organizational information' but doesn't explain what the 6 parameters (context, description, environment, owner, registry, tags) mean or how they relate to metadata elicitation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify parameter purposes.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Interactive context creation with elicitation for metadata' which provides a verb ('create') and resource ('context'), but is vague about what 'context' means in this system. It distinguishes from sibling 'create_context' by mentioning 'interactive' and 'elicitation', but doesn't clarify what makes it interactive versus the non-interactive version.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool ('When context metadata is not provided'), suggesting it's for cases where metadata is missing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over 'create_context' or other alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'compare' suggests a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state whether this is safe, what permissions are required, whether it affects system state, or what format the comparison output takes. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (comparing two registries with 4 parameters), complete lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what gets compared, how differences are presented, what the output format is, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based on the provided information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about what 'source_registry' and 'target_registry' should contain, what 'include_configs' and 'include_contexts' control, or how these parameters affect the comparison. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Compare two Schema Registry instances and show differences.' It specifies the verb ('compare'), resource ('Schema Registry instances'), and outcome ('show differences'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'compare_contexts_across_registries', which appears to have a more specific focus on contexts rather than general registry comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or how it differs from related tools like 'compare_contexts_across_registries' or 'find_missing_schemas'. The agent receives no usage context beyond the basic purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it counts active vs all schemas, or how results are returned (e.g., as a number, with metadata). The phrase 'Count the number' implies a simple read operation but lacks critical details for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Count the number of schemas in a context or registry') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it optimally concise for its limited content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral constraints, or return format, leaving significant gaps for the agent to guess. For a counting tool with undefined parameters, more context is needed to ensure correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'context or registry' but doesn't explain what these parameters represent, their format, whether both can be used simultaneously, or what happens when neither is provided (since both default to null). The description adds minimal value beyond what's inferred from parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Count') and resource ('number of schemas'), specifying the scope ('in a context or registry'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'count_contexts' and 'count_schema_versions' by focusing on schemas, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'list_subjects' or 'get_schema_versions' that might also involve schema enumeration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose 'context' vs 'registry' parameters, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'list_subjects' or 'get_schema_versions' that might provide similar counting functionality. The agent must infer usage from the tool 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an export operation but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's destructive, what format the export produces, or any rate limits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though it communicates too little rather than being overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the export produces, how parameters affect the output, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't mention the registry parameter, the include_config/ include_metadata/ include_versions options, or their effects on the export. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Export') and target resources ('all contexts and schemas from a registry'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'export_context' or 'export_schema', which appear to handle more specific exports.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'export_context' or 'export_schema'. There's no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent with insufficient context for appropriate tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is 'interactive' and will 'elicit' preferences, which hints at user interaction, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it's read-only or destructive (export might imply read-only, but not confirmed), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens during elicitation (e.g., prompts, timeouts). For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, and the second clarifies usage. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys key points. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing what 'global' entails, but overall, it's concise and well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'global export' includes, how elicitation works, the tool's safety profile, and the meaning of parameters. Without this information, an AI agent would struggle to use the tool correctly, making it insufficient for the tool's scope and parameter richness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only vaguely references 'export preferences' without explaining what the parameters (e.g., compression, format, include_config) mean or how they affect the export. It adds minimal semantic value beyond implying parameters relate to preferences, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, which is inadequate given the high parameter count.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool performs an 'interactive global export with elicitation for export preferences', which indicates it exports data globally and interactively gathers preferences. However, it's vague about what 'global export' means (e.g., all schemas, contexts, or other resources) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'export_global' (non-interactive) or 'export_context', leaving ambiguity in its specific scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'When export preferences are not specified, this tool will elicit the required configuration from the user.' This implies it's suitable for cases where preferences are unknown or need user input, offering guidance on its interactive nature. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. 'export_global' for predefined preferences) or mention alternatives, which limits full differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Export' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this is a safe operation, what format the export produces, whether it's a bulk operation, or any performance implications. The description lacks crucial behavioral context needed for an AI agent to use this tool effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential action and resource. There's zero wasted language, making it efficient for quick comprehension while still conveying the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'subject' means in this system, what gets exported, in what format, or how the various parameters affect the export. The agent would be operating largely in the dark when using this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 6 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It mentions 'subject' but doesn't explain what a subject is in this context or what the other 5 parameters (context, include_config, include_metadata, include_versions, registry) control. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Export') and resource ('all versions of a subject'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'export_context', 'export_global', or 'export_schema', which appear to be related export operations in the same system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple export-related tools in the sibling list (export_context, export_global, export_schema), there's no indication of what distinguishes exporting a 'subject' from these other export operations or when each should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves progress information but doesn't describe what the progress data includes (e.g., percentage, status, estimated time), whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors, or rate limits. The alias mention adds some context but insufficient for a mutation-sensitive agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just one sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and its relationship to a sibling tool. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what progress information is returned, how to interpret it, or provide necessary parameter context. The alias mention is helpful but doesn't address core completeness gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'task_id' parameter. It doesn't explain what a task ID is, where to obtain it, format requirements, or examples. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the progress of an async task' specifies the verb (get) and resource (progress of async task). It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_task_status' by noting it's an alias, but doesn't explain how it differs from other progress-related tools like 'get_statistics_task_progress' or 'get_workflow_status'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance by mentioning it's an alias for 'get_task_status', but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus that sibling or other progress-checking tools like 'get_statistics_task_progress' or 'get_workflow_status'. No context about prerequisites, timing, or alternative scenarios is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation which implies read-only, but doesn't specify what 'status' includes, whether it returns real-time or cached data, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter, return values, or behavioral characteristics needed for proper tool invocation. For a query tool in a complex workflow management system, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the parameter 'workflow_id' is completely undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't mention this parameter at all, failing to compensate for the schema gap. It doesn't explain whether the parameter is required, what happens when it's null, or how it affects the query.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'status of active workflows', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_workflow' or 'workflow_status', but it's unambiguous about what it does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'describe_workflow', 'list_workflows', or 'workflow_status'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names 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 mentions the tool 'starts' a workflow and helps 'safely evolve schemas,' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are required, whether it's interactive or batch, or what happens upon invocation (e.g., does it block other operations?). The description lacks details on error handling, rate limits, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently state the tool's purpose and high-level functionality. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Start the Schema Evolution Assistant workflow') and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from outcomes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (starting a workflow with 2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the 'what' but lacks critical context: no parameter explanations, no behavioral details, and no usage guidelines. The output schema helps, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the gaps in schema coverage and missing annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description doesn't mention any parameters or their purposes. With 2 parameters ('current_schema' and 'subject'), the description fails to explain what these inputs mean, how they affect the workflow, or if they're optional (as indicated by 0 required parameters). This leaves parameters entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Start the Schema Evolution Assistant workflow' with the specific function of helping 'safely evolve schemas by analyzing changes, suggesting strategies, and coordinating consumer updates.' It provides a verb ('Start') and resource ('Schema Evolution Assistant workflow') with specific outcomes. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'guided_schema_migration' or 'bulk_schema_update,' which may have overlapping domains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the tool helps with 'safely evolving schemas,' but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools related to schema operations (e.g., 'guided_schema_migration,' 'bulk_schema_update'), the lack of comparative context leaves usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'multi-step workflow' and 'complex Schema Registry operations', but fails to detail critical aspects such as whether this is a long-running process, what permissions are required, if it's idempotent, or what happens upon invocation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'multi-step workflow' and 'complex operations', the description is incomplete. No annotations exist, and while an output schema is present, the description lacks details on workflow behavior, error handling, or integration with other tools. It meets a minimum standard but leaves key contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the parameters 'workflow_id' or 'initial_context', nor does it provide examples or constraints. However, with only 2 parameters and an output schema present, the baseline is 3, as the description adds no meaningful semantic information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Start[s] a multi-step workflow for complex Schema Registry operations', which provides a clear verb ('Start') and resource ('workflow'), but lacks specificity about what the workflow entails or how it differs from other workflow-related tools like 'list_available_workflows' or 'describe_workflow'. It's vague about the exact nature of the operations, making it adequate but with gaps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list_available_workflows', 'describe_workflow', and 'workflow_status', the description does not indicate prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'safe execution' and 'Guides through,' hinting at interactivity and safety, but lacks details on permissions required, potential side effects, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with admin tasks and no 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value: starting the wizard, guiding safe execution, and listing supported operations. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (admin tasks, interactive wizard), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It doesn't mention any parameters like 'dry_run' or 'operation_type,' nor does it explain their purposes or usage. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema provides, failing to address the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Start the interactive Bulk Operations Wizard for admin tasks' specifies the verb (start), resource (wizard), and scope (admin tasks). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing interactivity and guidance, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific sibling tools like bulk_schema_update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through 'admin tasks' and 'safe execution of operations across multiple schemas,' suggesting it's for administrative bulk operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_schema_update or bulk_schema_migration, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Cancel' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated resources, or what the response looks like. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation and front-loads the essential information immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'cancel' means operationally, what state changes occur, whether there are side effects, or what confirmation/response to expect. Given the complexity of cancellation operations and lack of structured documentation, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's obvious from the tool name. The single parameter 'request_id' is self-explanatory, but the description doesn't clarify format requirements, where to obtain valid IDs, or relationship to 'list_elicitation_requests' and 'get_elicitation_request' sibling tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cancel') and the target ('a pending elicitation request'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cancel_task' or 'abort_workflow', which could handle similar cancellation operations on different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the request must be pending), exclusions (e.g., cannot cancel completed requests), or when to choose sibling tools like 'cancel_task' for different cancellation scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It implies a mutation operation ('Cancel') but doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, is reversible, affects other tasks, or has side effects. For a tool that likely terminates processes, this lack of detail is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Cancel a running task.') with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. Every word contributes directly to the core purpose, achieving optimal efficiency for such a brief statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's likely complexity (canceling tasks often involves permissions, side effects, or status changes), no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter guidance, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address what happens post-cancellation, error conditions, or how to verify success, leaving critical gaps for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions no parameters, and the schema has 0% description coverage with one undocumented parameter ('task_id'). However, since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description doesn't add any semantic context (e.g., what constitutes a valid task ID, where to find it), so it's reduced to 3 for failing to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cancel') and target ('a running task'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'abort_workflow' or 'cancel_elicitation_request' that might also terminate processes, leaving some ambiguity about its specific domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'abort_workflow' or 'cancel_elicitation_request' from the sibling list. It doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., task must be running) or exclusions, offering minimal contextual direction beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool counts contexts, but doesn't explain key behaviors: whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles large registries (e.g., pagination or performance), what the output format is (e.g., integer count or structured response), or if there are any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words: 'Count the number of contexts in a registry.' It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, performance, or output format, nor does it provide usage context relative to siblings. For a tool that likely interacts with registries and contexts, more detail is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('registry') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description mentions 'in a registry', implying the parameter specifies which registry to count contexts in, but doesn't clarify if it's optional (defaulting to a current registry) or required, or what values are valid. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Count the number of contexts in a registry.' It specifies the verb ('Count') and resource ('contexts in a registry'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_contexts' or 'compare_contexts_across_registries', which might offer overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list_contexts' (which likely lists contexts) and 'compare_contexts_across_registries' (which might involve counting), there's no indication of when 'count_contexts' is preferred, such as for performance or summary purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what 'count' entails (e.g., returns an integer, may require permissions, or has rate limits). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to explaining the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, return values, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool effectively in a complex environment with many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description implies a 'specific schema' but doesn't explain the parameters (subject, context, registry) or their relationships. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the tool name, resulting in a baseline score due to the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Count') and resource ('number of versions for a specific schema'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'count_schemas' or 'get_schema_versions', but the specificity of counting versions for a particular schema is inherently distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_schema_versions' (which likely lists versions) or 'count_schemas' (which counts schemas, not versions). It also lacks context on prerequisites or constraints, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool finds missing schemas but does not describe how it operates—e.g., whether it performs a read-only comparison, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns results in a specific format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does, making it easy to understand at a glance, with zero waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of comparing registries, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or result format, nor does it provide usage context or parameter details. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description implies parameters for 'source_registry' and 'target_registry' but does not add meaning beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema titles ('Source Registry', 'Target Registry', 'Context') are basic, and the description does not explain what these parameters represent (e.g., registry names, URLs) or the optional 'context' parameter's purpose. It compensates minimally, aligning with the baseline for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find schemas that exist in source registry but not in target registry.' It specifies the verb ('find') and resources ('schemas'), and distinguishes the operation as a comparison between two registries. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compare_registries' or 'bulk_schema_migration', which may have overlapping functions, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks information on prerequisites, such as whether registries need to be connected or accessible, and does not mention sibling tools like 'compare_registries' or 'bulk_schema_migration' that might serve similar purposes. This omission leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does ('get status') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the status information returns, if there are rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of status-checking tools in this environment (with many sibling alternatives) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'status' means in this context, what information is returned, or how it differs from other status-related tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing unnecessary complexity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get the status of the elicitation system', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_elicitation_request' or 'list_elicitation_requests', leaving ambiguity about what specific status information is provided versus those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_elicitation_request', 'list_elicitation_requests', and 'get_workflow_status', the description offers no context about whether this tool provides system-level status, request-level status, or something else entirely.
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 'detailed status' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., progress, errors, timestamps), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any authentication/rate limit requirements. For a status-checking tool, this leaves behavioral aspects unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed status' entails, potential error conditions, or how this differs from other status tools, leaving gaps for proper tool invocation in a complex server environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but there's only one parameter (migration_id). The description implies it's for a 'specific migration', aligning with the parameter, but doesn't add details like format, source, or validation rules. With minimal parameters, the baseline is appropriate but not enhanced.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed status of a specific migration', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_migrations' or 'get_workflow_status', which could provide similar migration-related information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_migrations' and 'get_workflow_status' available, there's no indication whether this tool is for ongoing migrations, completed ones, or specific migration types, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination. The note about 'ignored in single-registry mode' adds some context, but overall behavioral traits are minimally described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized: a clear purpose sentence followed by separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence adds value, with no redundant information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the 'Args' explanations into the main text, but the structure enhances readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return value adequately, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or performance. Without annotations or output schema, more context on usage and limitations would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that explains both parameters: 'schema_id' as 'The globally unique schema ID' and 'registry' as 'Optional registry name (ignored in single-registry mode).' This adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or examples for 'schema_id' (e.g., integer range) or 'registry' (e.g., valid names).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get subjects and versions associated with a schema ID.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), the resources ('subjects and versions'), and the relationship ('associated with a schema ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_schema_versions' or 'list_subjects' that might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., single-registry mode), or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_schema_versions' or 'list_subjects' that might retrieve similar data. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement.
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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the task_id is invalid, if there are rate limits, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no space on redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of async task monitoring and the lack of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'status and progress' entails, what values might be returned, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. For a tool that likely returns structured data about task execution, more context is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with only a single parameter 'task_id' documented structurally. The description doesn't add any semantic information about this parameter—it doesn't explain what a task_id is, where to obtain it, or its expected format. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any parameter guidance in the description reduces this to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status and progress of an async task'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_task_progress' or 'get_workflow_status', which appear to have similar functions, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_task_progress', 'get_workflow_status', and 'list_active_tasks' available, there's no indication of whether this tool is for general async tasks, specific workflows, or other contexts. This lack of differentiation makes it difficult for an agent to choose correctly among similar options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions starting a workflow but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a long-running operation, what permissions are required, if it's interactive or automated, or what happens to existing schemas. The description is too vague for a workflow tool with potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action. It's front-loaded with the key verb 'Start' and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a workflow tool (likely involving schema reorganization across contexts), the description is minimal. No annotations are provided, but an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks details on workflow behavior, prerequisites, or outcomes, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is given since the schema fully covers the lack of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Start[s] the Context Reorganization workflow for reorganizing schemas across contexts', which provides a clear verb ('Start') and resource ('Context Reorganization workflow'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'guided_schema_migration' or 'guided_schema_evolution', which also appear to be guided workflows. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this workflow is appropriate compared to other bulk operations or guided workflows in the sibling list, or any exclusions. The user must infer usage 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 full burden. It mentions starting a 'workflow' and 'wizard', implying an interactive or step-by-step process, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or destructive, what permissions are needed, if it's asynchronous, or what the expected output entails. This is inadequate for a tool that likely initiates significant operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Start the Schema Migration Wizard workflow'). It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool likely initiates a complex migration workflow with no annotations, the description is minimal. It mentions a 'wizard' and 'workflow', hinting at interactivity, but lacks details on behavior, output, or error handling. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description doesn't leverage this to provide context, making it incomplete for safe agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no required inputs by not mentioning any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Start[s] the Schema Migration Wizard workflow for guided schema migration', which provides a clear verb ('Start') and resource ('Schema Migration Wizard workflow'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'bulk_schema_migration' or 'guided_schema_evolution', leaving the specific scope of 'guided' versus other migration approaches unclear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'bulk_schema_migration' and 'guided_schema_evolution', there's no indication of prerequisites, target scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names 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 states it 'gets' status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify what 'active workflows' means, whether it requires permissions, how results are returned, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and differentiation from siblings, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the 'instance_id' parameter. It doesn't explain what this parameter does, when to use it, or how it affects the output. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and target resource ('status of active workflows'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from the sibling 'get_workflow_status' tool, which appears to serve a similar function, so it misses full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_workflow_status' or 'list_workflows'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions that deletion affects 'all its versions' and explains the 'permanent' parameter's effect, it doesn't cover critical aspects like: whether deletion is reversible, what permissions are required, confirmation prompts, error conditions, or what happens to dependent resources. For a destructive operation, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The 'Args:' section is well-organized, though the initial sentence could be more front-loaded with critical behavioral information given the destructive nature of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, error handling, side effects on related resources, permission requirements, and recovery mechanisms. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain what confirmation or status is returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining all four parameters. It clarifies that 'subject' is the name to delete, 'context' and 'registry' are optional schema/registry names, and 'permanent' controls hard vs soft deletion. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or format requirements (e.g., subject naming conventions).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a subject and all its versions'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_context' or 'bulk_schema_cleanup', but the resource specificity (subject vs context/schemas) provides some implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_context' or 'bulk_schema_cleanup'. It mentions the 'permanent' parameter but doesn't explain when hard vs soft deletion is appropriate, nor does it mention prerequisites, dependencies, or recovery options.
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. 'List all' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this includes completed/failed tasks, pagination, sorting, or permissions required. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List all statistics-related tasks'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on return format (e.g., task IDs, statuses) and behavioral context (e.g., scope, limitations). For a list operation in a server with many sibling tools, more completeness would help distinguish it and set expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters, and the description doesn't introduce unnecessary complexity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all statistics-related tasks' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('statistics-related tasks'), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_active_tasks', 'list_workflows', or 'get_statistics_task_progress', leaving ambiguity about what specifically constitutes 'statistics-related' tasks versus other task types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after starting a workflow), or comparisons to siblings like 'list_active_tasks' or 'get_statistics_task_progress', leaving the agent to infer usage 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('abort') without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions required, whether the abort is reversible, side effects, rate limits, or what happens to workflow data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations and incomplete behavioral disclosure, it leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's full context and implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the single parameter 'instance_id' is self-explanatory from context. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what's implied by the tool name, so it neither compensates for the coverage gap nor provides extra value. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the straightforward single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Abort an active workflow' clearly states the verb (abort) and resource (workflow), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cancel_task' or 'cancel_elicitation_request' that might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cancel_task' or 'describe_workflow'. It mentions 'active workflow' but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or what constitutes an 'active' state, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'safety checks' and 'detects active consumers and provides options for handling them,' which adds valuable context about the tool's cautious approach and interactive elements. However, it doesn't detail what happens during cleanup (e.g., irreversible deletion, audit trails), permissions required, rate limits, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a bulk 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured in three sentences: an overview, a key feature, and supported scenarios. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. While it could be slightly more detailed given the tool's complexity, it avoids fluff and is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (bulk schema cleanup with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits critical details: what the tool returns, how 'active consumers' are handled, the meaning of 'force' or 'pattern,' and the full behavioral implications of a bulk mutation operation. More context is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning no schema-level documentation. The description mentions 'safety checks' (hinting at 'check_consumers' and 'force'), 'test schema cleanup, deprecated schema removal, and version purging' (relating to 'cleanup_type' and 'keep_versions'), and 'schemas' (possibly linking to 'pattern'). However, it doesn't fully explain each parameter's role, acceptable values (e.g., what 'cleanup_type' options are), or interactions, failing to compensate adequately for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Clean up schemas in bulk with safety checks.' It specifies the action (clean up), resource (schemas), scope (bulk), and safety aspect. While it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'bulk_schema_migration' or 'bulk_schema_update' by focusing on cleanup rather than migration or updates, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives in the description text itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through 'with safety checks' and mentions specific cleanup scenarios: 'test schema cleanup, deprecated schema removal, and version purging.' However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_subject' or 'bulk_schema_migration,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns information about JSON-RPC batching, protocol version, header validation, and migration guidance, but doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, its response format, or potential side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second details what information is returned. It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more polished by integrating the return details into the first sentence for better flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with no parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies what information is returned but doesn't cover the response format, error conditions, or usage context. Without an output schema, the description should ideally detail the return structure, but it only lists categories of information, leaving gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it correctly implies no inputs are required by not mentioning any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get MCP 2025-06-18 specification compliance status and configuration details.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('compliance status and configuration details'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'check_compatibility' or 'get_migration_status' by focusing on MCP specification compliance. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, scenarios where it's appropriate, or contrast with siblings like 'check_compatibility' or 'get_migration_status'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, pagination, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely returns a list.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what 'available' means, the format of returned workflows, or how this differs from similar siblings, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, aligning with the schema, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all available multi-step workflows'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes the resource type (workflows) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'list_workflows', which appears to be a similar tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_workflows' or 'describe_workflow'. The description mentions 'complex operations' but doesn't specify contexts or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get detailed information', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails beyond the output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it lacks depth for a tool that might involve workflow-specific nuances, leaving gaps in overall context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description doesn't add specific meaning to the 'workflow_id' parameter. However, the baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, and since there's only one parameter, the lack of additional semantics is less critical, but it doesn't compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'workflow definition' with specificity 'detailed information', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential siblings like 'get_workflow_status' or 'list_workflows', which could provide overlapping information about workflows.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_workflow_status' or 'list_workflows'. The description implies usage for retrieving details but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves the 'current default registry', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral details like whether this requires authentication, what format the registry information is returned in, or if there are any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality in minimal words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what the 'default registry' entails or what information is returned, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and output. However, the simplicity of the tool (0 params) mitigates some completeness concerns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately avoids unnecessary details. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameters exist to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('current default registry'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_registry_info' or 'list_registries', which might provide related but different information about registries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to registries (e.g., 'get_registry_info', 'list_registries', 'compare_registries'), there is no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify details like authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that might involve sensitive OAuth data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It explains what the tool does but does not cover behavioral aspects like response format or usage context, which could be important for OAuth-related operations. It meets basic needs but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids redundancy and focuses on the tool's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get information about OAuth scopes and permissions,' specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'OAuth scopes and permissions.' However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'test_oauth_discovery_endpoints' or 'get_mcp_compliance_status_tool,' which might overlap in domain, so it lacks explicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'test_oauth_discovery_endpoints' or other info-retrieval tools in the sibling list. It lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves schema information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns errors for invalid IDs, or handles the optional 'registry' parameter's behavior in single-registry mode. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence adds value—none are redundant or verbose. It efficiently covers key points without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the tool's purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., error handling, authentication) and return values (only mentions 'Schema information including content, type, and metadata' without specifics). For a read operation with 2 parameters, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in contextual richness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context: 'schema_id' is a 'globally unique ID' (clarifying its scope beyond the schema), and 'registry' is 'optional' and 'ignored in single-registry mode' (explaining its conditional relevance). This goes beyond the schema's basic types and titles, providing practical usage insights, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., integer ranges).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a schema by its globally unique ID.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('schema'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_schema' (which likely uses different identifiers) and 'get_schema_versions' (which retrieves multiple versions). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'export_schema' or 'migrate_schema', which slightly limits clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'get_schema_by_id' over 'get_schema' (which might use a different identifier) or 'export_schema' (which might output the schema differently). There's also no mention of prerequisites, such as needing the schema ID from another operation, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it starts a workflow without detailing what that entails (e.g., interactive steps, side effects, permissions required, or time commitment). It mentions 'configuring DR strategies' but doesn't explain the behavioral impact or expected outcomes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Start the Disaster Recovery Setup workflow') and adds purpose ('for configuring DR strategies'). Every word contributes value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on workflow behavior, outcomes, or interaction patterns. It covers the purpose but misses context like what the workflow does or how it differs from other guided tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate, but it could hint at implicit inputs (e.g., user context), though not required. Baseline is 4 for zero-param tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start') and the target ('Disaster Recovery Setup workflow'), specifying it's for configuring DR strategies. It distinguishes from siblings like 'start_workflow' by being more specific about the workflow type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start_workflow' or other guided workflows (e.g., 'guided_context_reorganization'). The description implies it's for DR setup but lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List all active tasks' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what 'active' means, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks context about what constitutes an 'active task', how results are returned, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with unanswered questions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema), so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 since it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and target resource ('all active tasks in the system'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workflows' or 'list_statistics_tasks' to explain what makes 'active tasks' distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools starting with 'list_' (e.g., 'list_workflows', 'list_subjects'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this specific listing tool.
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 listing 'usage patterns' which suggests some behavioral insight beyond a simple list, but doesn't specify what format these patterns take, whether the output is paginated, if authentication is required, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing operation and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's apparent simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete for basic understanding. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral context about what 'usage patterns' entails and how this differs from other listing tools. The description is adequate but leaves questions about the tool's specific value proposition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema handles all parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and target ('all available MCP resources and their usage patterns'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_contexts', 'list_subjects', or 'list_registries' that also list specific resource types, leaving some ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling 'list_' tools available (e.g., list_contexts, list_subjects, list_registries), there's no indication whether this is a comprehensive overview tool or how it relates to more specific listing operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') but doesn't describe traits like whether it's read-only, pagination behavior, error handling, or authentication needs. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key information ('List all pending elicitation requests') and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output format, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively in more complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input (none required). The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given the lack of parameters, aligning with the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('elicitation requests') with the qualifier 'pending', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_elicitation_request' or 'get_elicitation_status', which focus on individual requests or status details rather than listing all pending ones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_elicitation_request' for detailed views or 'cancel_elicitation_request' for actions on pending requests, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List all migration tasks and their status' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this includes historical/completed tasks, pagination behavior, permission requirements, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence ('List all migration tasks and their status') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks details about behavioral traits (e.g., what 'all' encompasses, status format, or any constraints). It's minimally adequate but leaves the agent to infer important operational aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all migration tasks and their status' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('migration tasks and their status'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_migration_status' or 'list_active_tasks', which could have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_migration_status' (which might retrieve status for a specific migration) and 'list_active_tasks' (which might list all active tasks regardless of type), the agent has no explicit direction on when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information about pagination, sorting, filtering, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'available' means in practice. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless listing tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema will document return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. However, given the complexity implied by 'multi-step workflows' and the lack of annotations, the description should provide more context about what constitutes an 'available' workflow and how this listing relates to other workflow operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the empty parameter set. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. It earns a 4 because it doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List available multi-step workflows' clearly states the action (list) and resource (workflows), with 'available' and 'multi-step' providing useful qualifiers. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'list_available_workflows', which appears to serve a similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_available_workflows' or 'describe_workflow'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or relationships to other workflow-related tools like 'start_workflow' or 'get_workflow_status'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions backward compatibility and performance considerations, which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe what 'mode' means in this context, whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. Both sentences earn their place by adding value, with no wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the context: no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on parameters, return values, and behavioral aspects like error handling or permissions. For a tool in a complex registry system, this leaves too much undefined for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters ('context' and 'registry') with 0% schema description coverage, meaning their purposes are undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what they are, when they're needed, or how they affect the operation. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the current mode of the Schema Registry.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('current mode of the Schema Registry'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_subject_mode' or 'update_mode', which would be needed for a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: it notes this tool is 'maintained for backward compatibility' and recommends 'Consider using the 'registry://mode' resource instead for better performance.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (for backward compatibility) and when to prefer an alternative (the resource for better performance).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions backward compatibility and performance considerations, which adds some context. However, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., schema content, metadata), error conditions, or other behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the purpose and provide critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on parameters, return values, and behavioral aspects. For a tool that retrieves schema versions, more context on inputs and outputs is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (context, registry, subject, version) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their relationships, or how they affect the retrieval (e.g., what 'latest' version entails). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, resulting in poor parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a specific version of a schema.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_schema_by_id' or 'get_schema_versions', which appear to be related schema retrieval tools, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: it states the tool is 'maintained for backward compatibility' and recommends an alternative ('Consider using the 'schema://{name}/{context}/{subject}' resource instead for better performance'). This clearly indicates when to use this tool (for backward compatibility) and when to prefer an alternative, meeting the highest criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the interactive elicitation behavior well, but doesn't cover other important aspects like whether this is a read-only or write operation, what permissions are needed, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. The description adds value by explaining the interactive nature, but leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise and well-structured. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second sentence provides essential usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the most important information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters (0% documented in schema), no annotations, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is incomplete. While it explains the interactive elicitation behavior well, it doesn't address parameter meanings, return values, error conditions, or how this differs from the non-interactive 'register_schema' sibling. The description does the minimum for its core function but leaves too many contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters (only 1 required), the description provides no information about any parameters. It mentions 'schema_definition' in the usage context but doesn't explain what it is, its format, or how it relates to other parameters like 'subject', 'registry', 'context', or 'schema_type'. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Interactive schema registration with elicitation for missing field definitions.' It specifies the verb ('registration'), resource ('schema'), and key behavior ('interactive elicitation'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'register_schema' (non-interactive version), which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: 'When schema_definition is incomplete or missing fields, this tool will elicit the required information from the user interactively.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (for incomplete schemas requiring user input) versus presumably non-interactive alternatives. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, keeping it from a score of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is for 'backward compatibility' and suggests an alternative for 'better performance,' hinting at potential inefficiencies. However, it lacks details on what 'test connection' entails (e.g., network checks, authentication, response format), error handling, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides critical usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (connection testing with no annotations, 1 undocumented parameter, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the test involves, expected outcomes, error conditions, and parameter usage. While it provides good usage guidance, it doesn't cover essential operational context for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'registry' parameter. It doesn't explain what the parameter represents (e.g., registry name, URL), valid values, or default behavior. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Test connection to a specific registry.' It uses a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('registry'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'test_all_registries' or 'ping' beyond the backward compatibility note.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: it states 'Consider using the 'registry://status/{name}' resource instead for better performance,' offering a clear alternative. The backward compatibility note implies this tool is legacy and should be avoided when possible, giving strong when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific configuration settings are returned. The backward compatibility note is useful context, but for a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with zero wasted words. The NOTE format effectively highlights important information without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a read operation with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it provides excellent usage guidance, it lacks parameter explanations and behavioral details. For a configuration retrieval tool, the agent needs to know what 'global configuration settings' includes and how parameters affect the results, which are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no information about the 2 parameters (context and registry), and schema description coverage is 0%. The description doesn't explain what these parameters mean, how they affect the operation, or whether they're required. With low schema coverage and no parameter explanation in the description, this fails to compensate for the documentation gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with 'Get global configuration settings' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('global configuration settings'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_global_config' by indicating it's a read operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other configuration-related tools like 'get_subject_config' or 'get_default_registry'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Consider using the 'registry://{name}/config' resource instead for better performance.' It also indicates this is 'maintained for backward compatibility,' which helps the agent understand this is a legacy option. This is exactly the type of explicit alternative guidance that warrants a 5.
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. While 'Get detailed information' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify what constitutes 'detailed information,' whether authentication is required, potential rate limits, or error conditions. The backward compatibility note adds some context but doesn't fully describe the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides crucial usage guidance. Both sentences earn their place, with no wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read tool, the description covers the basic purpose and provides excellent usage guidance. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, it leaves significant gaps in understanding parameter requirements and return values. The backward compatibility context is helpful but doesn't fully compensate for these structural deficiencies.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'registry' parameter. It doesn't explain what format the registry identifier should take, whether it's required (schema shows default: null), or what happens when null is provided. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific registry.' This is a specific verb ('Get') + resource ('registry') combination that indicates a read operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_registry_statistics' or 'list_registries' beyond the backward compatibility note.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides excellent usage guidance with explicit alternatives and context. It states: 'Consider using the 'registry://info/{name}' resource instead for better performance.' This gives clear direction on when to prefer an alternative approach, and the backward compatibility note helps frame when this tool might still be appropriate.
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. The description states it's a read operation ('Get'), which implies it's non-destructive, but it doesn't mention any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like. The backward compatibility note adds some context, but overall, the description lacks sufficient behavioral details for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence provides critical usage guidance. There's no wasted text, and both sentences earn their place by adding essential information, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and usage guidelines well but lacks details on parameters, behavior, and output. For a tool with no structured support, it should do more to explain what it returns or how to interpret results, but the backward compatibility note adds some value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 3 parameters (subject, context, registry) are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'subject' implicitly ('for a specific subject') but doesn't explain what 'subject', 'context', or 'registry' mean, their formats, or how they interact. This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get configuration settings for a specific subject.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('configuration settings for a specific subject'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_global_config' or 'update_subject_config' beyond the backward compatibility note.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'NOTE: This tool is maintained for backward compatibility. Consider using the 'subject://{name}/{context}/{subject}/config' resource instead for better performance.' This clearly states when to use this tool (for backward compatibility) and when to use an alternative (the resource for better performance), which is comprehensive 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions backward compatibility and performance considerations, which is useful context, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and usage alternatives well but lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details, and output information. It's adequate for basic understanding but has clear gaps for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain any of the three parameters (subject, context, registry) beyond what's implied in the alternative resource path. No parameter meanings, formats, or examples are provided, failing to address the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with 'Get the operational mode for a specific subject,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_mode' or 'update_subject_mode,' which appear related to mode operations, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance by stating 'Consider using the 'subject://{name}/{context}/{subject}/mode' resource instead for better performance,' which clearly advises when not to use this tool and offers a named alternative. This is a strong example of when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions backward compatibility and performance implications, which adds useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise note on usage and alternatives. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and easy to parse for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and usage guidelines well but lacks parameter explanations and output details. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally hint at return values, which it doesn't, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (subject, context, registry) are documented in the schema. The description does not explain what these parameters mean, their expected values, or how they interact (e.g., that 'subject' is required while 'context' and 'registry' are optional with defaults). This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, resulting in a poor score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all versions of a schema for a subject.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('all versions of a schema for a subject'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_schema' or 'get_schema_by_id', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: it notes that the tool is 'maintained for backward compatibility' and recommends an alternative resource ('schema://{name}/{context}/{subject}/versions') for better performance. This clearly indicates when to use this tool (for backward compatibility) and when to prefer an alternative, fulfilling the criteria for a top score.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions backward compatibility and a performance alternative, which adds useful context about the tool's maintenance status. However, it doesn't describe key behaviors like whether it's read-only, how it handles errors, or what the output format is, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the purpose and provide critical usage notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and front-loaded with essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete for a simple listing tool. It covers purpose and usage guidelines well, but lacks details on parameters and behavioral aspects, making it adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('registry') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'registry' means, its purpose, or how it affects the listing. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this falls below the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all available schema contexts.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('schema contexts'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'count_contexts' or 'list_subjects', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: it notes this tool is 'maintained for backward compatibility' and recommends using 'registry://{name}/contexts' instead for better performance. This clearly indicates when to use this tool (for compatibility) versus an alternative (for performance), meeting the highest criteria.
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 full burden. It states the tool is 'maintained for backward compatibility,' which is useful behavioral context about its lifecycle status. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, pagination behavior, error conditions, or performance characteristics beyond the performance comparison.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list operation with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains the tool's purpose and gives important usage guidance, but leaves parameter semantics partially undocumented and doesn't describe return values or behavioral details that would be helpful for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'optionally filtered by context' which explains one parameter's purpose, but doesn't mention the 'registry' parameter at all. With 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description adds some value for one parameter but leaves the other completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all subjects, optionally filtered by context.' This specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('subjects'), and scope ('all'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_subjects_by_schema_id' or 'list_contexts,' but 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 Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Consider using the 'registry://{name}/subjects' resource instead for better performance.' This directly advises when not to use this tool (for performance reasons) and names a specific alternative, which is excellent guidance for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool does (testing endpoints) and what it returns (dictionary with results), but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it makes network calls, potential side effects, error handling, or performance characteristics. For a testing tool with no annotations, this is insufficient disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the purpose, lists what's validated, then provides parameter and return details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description provides basic purpose and parameter info but lacks details on return structure (beyond 'dictionary'), error cases, or testing methodology. It's minimally adequate for a simple testing tool but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description compensates by explaining 'server_url: Base URL of the MCP server (default: http://localhost:8000)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema, clarifying the parameter's purpose and default value. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Test OAuth discovery endpoints to ensure proper MCP client compatibility.' It specifies the exact endpoints being validated and distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on OAuth discovery testing rather than general compatibility checks or other operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: testing OAuth discovery for MCP client compatibility. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_compatibility' or 'get_mcp_compliance_status_tool', nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions backward compatibility and performance considerations, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, error handling, or output format (e.g., list structure, pagination). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the purpose and provide critical usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality. No extraneous information is included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and usage guidelines adequately. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., output format or error cases), slightly limiting completeness for a tool in a complex sibling set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description does not discuss parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero parameters, as there is nothing to compensate for, and the description does not add unnecessary parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all configured Schema Registry instances.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('Schema Registry instances'), making it unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_registry_info' or 'compare_registries', which might provide similar or overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: it notes that the tool is 'maintained for backward compatibility' and recommends using 'registry://names' resource instead for better performance. This clearly indicates when to use this tool (for backward compatibility) and when to prefer an alternative, covering both inclusion and exclusion criteria effectively.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool tests connections, implying a read-only diagnostic operation, but does not specify details like whether it requires authentication, how it handles errors, or what the output format is. The backward compatibility note adds some context, but more behavioral traits (e.g., performance impact, side effects) are missing. This is adequate but has gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and usage guidelines without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, followed by important contextual notes, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and provides critical usage advice. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what 'testing connections' entails or expected results), but it covers the essentials for this simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. It adds no semantic details beyond the schema, but with zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is justified as the description does not need to compensate for missing param info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Test connections to all configured registries.' This is a specific verb ('Test') with a clear resource ('connections to all configured registries'), but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'test_registry_connection' or 'ping', which may have overlapping functionality. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: it states 'This tool is maintained for backward compatibility' and advises 'Consider using the 'registry://status' resource instead for better performance.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (for backward compatibility) and when to prefer an alternative (for better performance), offering strong context for selection.
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 full burden. It effectively describes behavior: it responds with 'pong' to ping requests, implements a standard protocol, and is used by proxies/clients for health checking. However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions, response format details, or performance characteristics that might be relevant 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly structured: first sentence states core functionality, second explains protocol context, third specifies usage. Each sentence earns its place with zero waste. The description is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter health check tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains purpose, protocol context, and usage. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the return value format (though 'pong' is implied) or potential error responses. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, but it could explicitly state 'no parameters required' for clarity. It effectively communicates the tool's simplicity without unnecessary parameter discussion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Respond to MCP ping requests with pong.' It specifies the exact verb ('respond') and resource ('MCP ping requests'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explaining it's for server health checking, unlike all other tools which perform various registry, schema, or workflow operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'for server health checking' and 'to verify that the server is alive and responding.' It also implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on protocol verification rather than data operations, making it clear this is for connectivity testing versus the registry/schema management tasks of other tools.
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:

[![kafka-schema-reg-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aywengo/kafka-schema-reg-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aywengo/kafka-schema-reg-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![kafka-schema-reg-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aywengo/kafka-schema-reg-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aywengo/kafka-schema-reg-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/aywengo/kafka-schema-reg-mcp'

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