Amazing Marvin MCP
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.1
- Disambiguation4/5
Tools have clear purposes with distinct resource focuses, but there is some overlap among task retrieval tools (e.g., get_all_tasks, get_tasks, get_daily_productivity_overview, get_completed_tasks). Descriptions help disambiguate, so agents can generally select correctly.
Naming Consistency5/5All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., create_task, get_projects, start_time_tracking). No deviations or mixed styles, making the API predictable.
Tool Count4/5With 28 tools, the server covers a broad domain including tasks, projects, time tracking, goals, and account info. While slightly above the ideal range, each tool serves a specific purpose and the count is justified by the scope.
Completeness3/5The tool surface provides strong retrieval and creation capabilities, but lacks update and delete operations for tasks and projects. Critical workflows like editing or removing tasks are missing, creating notable gaps.
Average 3.1/5 across 28 of 28 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a new project' with no details on side effects, idempotency, authorization needs, or what happens on duplicate titles. This is a significant gap for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks critical information that could be added without unnecessary verbosity. True conciseness balances brevity with informativeness; here it is too brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema exists, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the effect of the optional parameters, the return value, or any behavioral nuances. The agent would be guessing about how to use debug or what project_type values are accepted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. The 'project_type' parameter has a default but no explanation of valid values (e.g., 'project', 'area'). 'debug' is unexplained. The schema provides no help, and the description does not compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Create a new project' and the system 'Amazing Marvin'. It is specific about the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'create_project_with_tasks', which likely creates a project with initial tasks, so the purpose is not fully distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_project_with_tasks' or 'create_task'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get categories' without mentioning any side effects, permissions, or return details. For a read operation, the agent cannot infer safety or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Although very short, the description is under-specified and fails to provide essential context. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one optional parameter and an output schema, the description does not explain the output format, pagination, or any constraints. It is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'debug' parameter. The agent has no information on when or why to set it, relying solely on the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get categories' which indicates a verb and resource, but it does not differentiate categories from other similar resources like labels or projects mentioned in siblings. The app name 'Amazing Marvin' is extraneous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_labels or get_projects. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
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 exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not specify what happens when no item is being tracked (e.g., returns null, error), or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic retrieval action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence) and lacks essential details. Under-specification is not effective conciseness; it omits critical context such as parameter usage and behavioral outcomes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema and sibling time tracking tools, the description should cover what the output contains (e.g., task/project details) and how it integrates with the time tracking context. It fails to do so, leaving the agent uninformed about the return value and edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'debug' parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool retrieves the currently tracked item from Amazing Marvin, clearly defining the verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_time_tracks' (which lists all time tracks) and 'time_tracking_summary' (which provides summary data).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools for time tracking (start/stop, get time tracks) are not mentioned, and no context for best use is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not confirm idempotency, side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. 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.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. It is appropriately front-loaded but too short for the tool's context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not hint at the return structure. The tool has a simple interface but lacks context on what kudos/achievement info includes, making it incomplete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'debug'. The description does not explain its purpose, behavior, or effect, adding no value beyond the schema structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get kudos and achievement information', which identifies the verb and resource but is vague. It doesn't specify what constitutes kudos or achievements, and it does not differentiate from other get_* tools like get_account_info or get_goals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
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?
Description lacks details on side effects (e.g., points deducted from user), required permissions, or any other behavioral traits. No annotations are provided to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (6 words), which is not conciseness but under-specification. It fails to provide necessary context for tool usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0% schema coverage, no output schema details, and 4 parameters with no semantic explanation, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 4 parameters with zero coverage in the schema descriptions. The description does not explain the meaning or expected format of any parameter beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: claiming reward points for completing a task. However, it does not differentiate from potential sibling tools like get_kudos_info, which might be related to reward points.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It only implies a read operation but does not disclose any specifics like auth requirements, rate limits, or data scope. For a tool with no annotations, more detail is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and free of fluff, but it sacrifices informative content for brevity. It could be more helpful without significant verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of many sibling tools and the existence of an output schema, the description lacks context about what 'account information' comprises and how it relates to other tools. It is minimally complete for a simple read operation but insufficient for an agent to decide when to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'debug' has 0% schema coverage and the description adds no meaning about its purpose or effect. The schema provides defaults and type but no semantic context; description should clarify when to use this parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'account information', which is specific and distinguishes it from other tools like get_all_tasks. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes 'account information', leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_all_tasks or get_account_info's siblings. The description lacks context about its appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only says 'get comprehensive overview' without disclosing whether it's read-only, side effects, or permissions needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but lacks structure; it could be split into purpose and details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is too minimal for a tool that returns an overview of tasks and progress; it doesn't explain the output format or constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description provides no information about parameters beyond the schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it gets a comprehensive overview of a project including tasks and progress, distinguishing it from siblings like get_projects and get_tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_projects or get_tasks, nor any prerequisites or 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. It states 'get' implying read-only, but does not disclose what specific data is returned, any rate limits, or side effects. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), which is good for brevity, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is not front-loaded with important caveats or usage hints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but it fails to provide context about the scope of data (e.g., date range, user). With 2 parameters and sibling tools, the description is too minimal for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. 'task_ids' is self-explanatory from the name, but 'debug' is not elaborated. The description provides no additional context for parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get time tracking data for specific tasks', which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'time_tracking_summary' or 'get_daily_productivity_overview', so it lacks distinctiveness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, making it hard for an agent to decide when to invoke this 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 provided; description only states functionality. Lacks details on side effects, transactional behavior, error handling, or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence of 7 words is overly terse, sacrificing essential information for brevity. Does not justify its conciseness with completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters (2 required), no parameter descriptions, no usage context, and an output schema not elaborated, the description is severely incomplete for an AI agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no parameter details. The agent cannot infer what project_type or debug mean, or constraints on project_title and task_titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a project with multiple tasks at once, distinct from siblings like create_project (only project) and batch_create_tasks (only tasks).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_create_tasks or create_project. The description does not specify 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 only states 'Get all goals' with no disclosure about safety, rate limits, or side effects. For a read operation, this is minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices needed detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and one parameter, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return value format or behavior when no goals exist. Output schema exists but description should still provide context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds no information about the debug parameter. The parameter's purpose and usage are completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it gets all goals, which is a specific verb+resource. There are no sibling goal tools, so differentiation is not an issue. However, the description is minimal and could be slightly more explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not provide context for when getting all goals 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get all labels' but does not mention that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe any side effects, performance implications, or data limits. For a simple fetch, the lack of explicit read-only hint is a minor gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, such as by noting the existence of the debug parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (one boolean parameter, simple return likely), the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain what labels are, but the output schema exists to provide return structure. It lacks any extra context that would help an agent decide when to use this tool, but it is not critically incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema includes one parameter ('debug') with a default and type, but the description does not mention this parameter at all. Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description fails to clarify how the parameter affects behavior or when to use it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('get all labels') and the resource ('labels') from Amazing Marvin. It is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like get_categories or get_projects, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself. Could be improved by clarifying that 'labels' are a distinct entity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_categories or get_all_tasks. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions for use. The description is purely functional.
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?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, return format, or any operational behavior beyond a vague 'comprehensive summary'. This is insufficient for an AI agent to safely invoke the tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 9 words, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative without significant bloat, such as adding a brief mention of what the summary includes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, and there are several related sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not leverage the output schema's existence to explain return values, nor does it provide enough context to distinguish from similar productivity summaries. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 75% (three of four parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. The 'debug' parameter lacks a description in the schema, but the tool description does not compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets a 'comprehensive productivity summary' for a specified time range. The verb 'get' and resource 'productivity summary' are specific, but it does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_daily_productivity_overview' or 'time_tracking_summary', which may 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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. For example, it doesn't explain when to prefer this over 'get_daily_productivity_overview' or 'time_tracking_summary', nor does it mention prerequisites or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'stop time tracking' implying state mutation, but does not cover effects if no tracking is active, authentication needs, or reversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, efficient and front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple action, though it could be slightly longer to add value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema (unseen) and 2 parameters with no description coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens upon success or failure, or provide enough context for the tool to be used reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add parameter meaning. It does not. The schema defines task_id and debug, but the description offers no additional semantics or usage hints beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool stops time tracking for a specific task, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'start_time_tracking' by the antonym, but lacks explicit differentiation from other time-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like starting or viewing time tracks. The description does not specify context or prerequisites, 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the action 'create' without disclosing side effects, error conditions (e.g., duplicate title), or required permissions. It assumes the agent knows the tool creates a single task with specified fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and concise. However, it is excessively brief, omitting useful details like the existence of optional parameters or behavior. It is minimally viable but not well-structured for agent comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's 6 parameters and 25 sibling tools, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to use it effectively. It fails to hint at common use cases (e.g., creating a task with due date, category) or differentiate from batch_create_tasks.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 83%, so most parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'new task' in Amazing Marvin. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'batch_create_tasks' which creates multiple tasks, and 'create_project' for projects, though it does not explicitly name them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_create_tasks or create_project. There is no context on prerequisites, such as requiring a project or category to exist before assigning.
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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or what happens if the task is already completed. The output schema exists but is not described, leaving agents uninformed about the return value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and to the point, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity, key details are missing: no error handling, success/failure behavior, or impact on task state. The output schema exists but is not referenced, leaving the agent without a complete picture for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 67% schema coverage, the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. The schema describes 'item_id' and 'timezone_offset' adequately, and the description does not elaborate on any parameters. The undocumented 'debug' parameter is not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'mark' and resource 'task' with action 'completed', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'batch_mark_done', which could lead to confusion in batch versus single task scenarios.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'batch_mark_done' or prerequisites. The tool lacks any contextual hints about appropriate usage, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as partial failure handling, authentication requirements, or side effects. It merely restates the tool's function without depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (5 words) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices informative content. It earns its place moderately as it is not verbose, but fails to provide enough detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the batch operation nature and two parameters without descriptions, the description is incomplete. It omits prerequisites, error handling, and the meaning of 'mark as done'. An output schema exists but is ignored.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or usage of 'task_ids' or 'debug'. The description adds no value beyond the schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (mark as done) and the resource (multiple tasks), effectively distinguishing it from the sibling 'mark_task_done' which handles single tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mark_task_done'. While the batch nature is implied, no when-not or context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only states what tasks are returned, but omits details like sorting, pagination, read-only nature, auth needs, or effects. Minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two direct sentences: first declares purpose, second provides usage context and an alternative. No extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Core functionality is clear, but parameter semantics are missing and behavioral transparency is low. Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description lacks sufficient context for the single parameter and behavioral expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has one optional boolean parameter 'debug', but the description does not mention it or explain its effect. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool gets overdue and due tasks only, specifying 'past due date'. It distinguishes from sibling tool get_daily_productivity_overview by contrasting focus on urgent items versus a complete daily view.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use (focus on urgent/overdue items) and provides an alternative for a complete daily view. Does not cover other siblings like get_all_tasks, but the given guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It states basic mutation ('create') but does not disclose side effects, error handling, idempotency, or behavior beyond creation. It adds minimal context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that conveys the core purpose and optional parameters without unnecessary words. It is well front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (1 required, 3 optional) and an output schema, the description is too brief. It omits details like task_list constraints, debug behavior, return value, and limits. Schema and annotations do not fill gaps, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does 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 adds 'optional project/category assignment' for project_id and category_id, but does not explain the structure of task_list (what strings represent) or the debug parameter. This is insufficient for full parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create multiple tasks at once with optional project/category assignment' clearly states the verb (create), resource (multiple tasks), and scope (at once, with optional assignments). It differentiates from sibling tools like create_task (single task) and batch_mark_done (different action).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for bulk creation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like create_task. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'efficient API filtering' but does not disclose performance implications, auth needs, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single concise sentence front-loading the essential action and scope. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple with clear schema and output schema, but description lacks usage guidance vs similar siblings. Adequate but with minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (date described, debug not). Description adds no parameter details beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already describes date format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'completed tasks', and scope 'for a specific date', differentiating it from sibling 'get_completed_tasks' which lacks date filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by specifying date filtering but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. Agent must infer context from name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention what happens if time tracking is already active (overwrite or error) or whether the tracking is per-task or global. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three focused sentences, each with a clear role: purpose, usage context, and cross-references. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple start action but lacks details on prerequisites (task existence), error conditions, and output content. Given the existence of an output schema, some gaps are acceptable, but the overall context is somewhat incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'specific task' but does not explain the task_id format or source. The optional debug parameter is not described at all.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool starts time tracking for a specific task. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stop_time_tracking and references related tools for checking status, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises when to use ('when beginning focused work') and recommends checking current tracking status before starting and stopping afterward. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' scenarios, e.g., if already tracking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description implies read-only overview and consolidates data efficiently, but does not explicitly state side effects or permissions. The nature of an overview suggests no destructive actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Relatively concise, but includes some redundancy like 'Primary tool' and 'Consolidates multiple data sources efficiently.' Could be slightly trimmed without losing information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers the overall purpose and data sources, and names alternatives. However, lacks explanation of the debug parameter, which is essential for understanding tool behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'debug' is not mentioned in the description. With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain parameters but fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the purpose: get comprehensive daily productivity overview with specific components. Distinguishes from siblings by listing alternative tools for specific data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says it's the primary tool for daily planning and when to use it for complete view. Lists specific alternatives for more focused queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or disclose other behavioral details like auth requirements or rate limits. Minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences: purpose first, then usage guidelines. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Provides usage context and alternative tools, and there is an output schema. However, fails to describe the debug parameter, which is a gap given its presence in the input schema. Overall adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'debug' (optional boolean with default false) is not described at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain its effect, but it does not, leaving the agent uninformed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Get time tracking overview and productivity insights', specifying the verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like start_time_tracking and get_daily_productivity_overview.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use ('check current time tracking status and get productivity metrics') and when not, with references to alternative tools for starting/stopping tracking and daily overview.
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?
Without annotations, description carries full burden. It mentions 'efficient date filtering and categorization' but does not detail what categorization entails, output format, or any side effects. It is adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences with the main action front-loaded. No redundant or filler words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool (only debug param, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. However, it omits explanation of the debug parameter and what 'categorization' means.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'debug' (optional boolean) has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and is not mentioned in the tool description. The description should explain its purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves completed tasks from the past 7 days. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing specific date and custom range alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (review recent accomplishments) and provides alternatives for other cases: get_completed_tasks_for_date for specific dates and get_productivity_summary_for_time_range for custom ranges.
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?
The description notes the tool is 'experimental' and warns that recursive=True 'can be expensive', disclosing behavioral traits beyond the schema. With no annotations, it carries the full burden and does so effectively, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only nature or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three tightly written sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action and experimental nature, providing usage guidance, and detailing return types and parameter option. No redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately explains return types and the recursive option. It omits debug but that is minor. Experimental status is noted. Overall, it covers the essential context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67% (2 of 3 params described). The description adds value by explaining recursive's purpose ('Set recursive=True for deep hierarchy') and contextualizing parent_id. However, the debug parameter is left unexplained, and the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves child tasks of a specific parent task or project, differentiating it from siblings like get_tasks. It also specifies it returns both tasks and sub-projects, leaving no ambiguity about the resource and action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use when you need to see subtasks within a project or parent task', providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., get_tasks for broader queries) or state when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent.
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?
The description indicates the tool returns 'OK' or error details, which is informative. However, since no annotations are provided, it could explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive and safe to run.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loading the purpose immediately with no superfluous words. Every sentence is essential.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, usage, and return type, but misses explanation for the 'debug' parameter. Given the simplicity of the tool and existence of an output schema, it is nearly complete but has a notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one boolean parameter 'debug' with no description, and the tool description does not explain its purpose or effect. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Test the API connection and credentials', which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on tasks, projects, or time tracking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: 'Use when troubleshooting connection issues or verifying API setup.' No sibling tool has a similar purpose, so no alternative is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope (today's scheduled tasks only, excluding overdue/completed) but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or potential empty results. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences with clear front-loading of purpose and immediate usage guidance. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple filtered-list tool with one boolean parameter and an output schema, the description provides enough context for correct selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (debug) with schema providing type and default. The description does not explain the debug parameter, leaving 0% schema coverage. However, given the simplicity of the parameter, the schema is sufficient; the description adds no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Get today's scheduled tasks only' with a specific verb and resource scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_all_tasks and get_daily_productivity_overview.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use ('only today's scheduled items') and when-not-to-use guidance with alternative tool names for comprehensive overview or all tasks.
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, so description carries full burden. Describes it as a comprehensive search, implying broad scope and read-only nature. Lacks details on pagination, performance, or side effects, but is mostly transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and differentiation from sibling, making it complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (debug parameter lacks description). Description only repeats 'optional label filtering' already in schema and does not explain the debug parameter, failing to compensate for missing schema detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States 'Get all tasks across all projects with optional label filtering' with clear verb and scope, and distinguishes from sibling 'get_daily_productivity_overview'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use when you need to search/filter across your entire task system' and provides an alternative for daily focus, showing when to use and when not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose edge cases (e.g., pagination, authentication requirements). However, the simple nature of the tool makes this acceptable, earning a 4.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences front-loading purpose and usage, with no wasted words. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low tool complexity (simple list retrieval with one optional parameter and an output schema), the description is complete: it states what is returned, usage context, and directs to a sibling for deeper needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has one parameter ('debug') with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain the 'debug' parameter, leaving agents to guess its purpose. This is a clear gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'all projects', clearly defines projects as 'categories with type project', and distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_project_overview' for detailed analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use ('when you need project list for organization or project selection') and provides an alternative ('get_project_overview' for detailed analysis), fulfilling usage guidance completely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bgheneti/Amazing-Marvin-MCP'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server