@cassette.diy/mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., clips, tracks, footages, trends). Overlaps like cassette_create_clip vs cassette_start_clip_from_trend are clearly differentiated by context. All tools have clear, non-overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5All tools follow a consistent 'cassette_verb_noun' pattern in snake_case. Verbs like create, delete, get, list, update are used predictably. No mixing of conventions or vague names.
Tool Count3/528 tools is slightly above the recommended range for a typical server. While each tool earns its place given the domain's complexity, the count feels heavy and could potentially be consolidated (e.g., merging manage_clip_shares into separate tools).
Completeness4/5The tool surface covers core workflows for clips, tracks, footages, trends, and account management. Minor gaps exist, such as missing delete_track and list_tracks tools, but these are not critical and can be worked around.
Average 3/5 across 28 of 28 tools scored. Lowest: 1.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.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?
No annotations are provided, and the description is a single sentence without disclosing any behavioral traits. It does not specify side effects (e.g., whether it creates a new database entry), idempotency, auth requirements, or error conditions. The description carries the full burden but fails to provide any behavioral context beyond a vague 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 concise (one short sentence), but it fails to earn its place by providing minimal information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. Every sentence should add value, but this one adds only a vague action and resource.
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 low complexity (3 flat parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is still insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, error handling, or any contextual completeness. The agent would need to guess the behavior from the tool name and siblings.
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?
Parameter schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. The description does not explain the purpose or format of the url, title, or notes parameters. For example, whether the url must be a specific type of video URL or what constitutes a valid title is unclear.
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 'Save a trend video URL' indicates the action (save) and resource (trend video URL), but it lacks clarity on whether this creates a new trend resource. The tool name suggests creation, but the description uses 'save', which is ambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like cassette_create_clip by mentioning 'trend', but does not explicitly state the purpose of creating a trend.
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 such as cassette_start_clip_from_trend or cassette_list_trends. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The agent has to infer context 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, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention any side effects, authorization requirements, or what happens upon creation, leaving the agent uninformed.
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 one short sentence, which is concise, but it is too minimal to be considered well-structured. Every word earns its place, but the lack of detail makes it merely adequate.
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 simplicity (1 required param, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what a 'creator clip' is, how it relates to sibling tools, or any prerequisites, leaving significant gaps.
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 one required parameter 'name' with no description, and the tool description does not add any meaning to it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to explain what 'name' represents or any constraints.
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' and the resource 'clip', making the primary purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'cassette_create_track' or 'cassette_create_trend', which could cause confusion.
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. The description fails to explain scenarios where creating a clip is appropriate compared to other create tools or update/delete 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?
The description indicates a destructive operation ('Delete'), which is the core behavior. However, with no annotations, the description should clarify side effects (e.g., permanent removal, impact on associated data) but does not. Basic trait is clear, but deeper implications are missing.
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 with no wasted words. However, it is too short and lacks structure, missing important details like behavioral notes or parameter guidance. It is concise but at the expense of completeness.
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 no output schema, a single undocumented parameter, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover what happens after deletion, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. The tool is a destructive action, so more context is necessary for safe usage.
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 a single required parameter 'clipId' with no description and 0% schema coverage. The tool description does not explain what the clipId is, how to obtain it, or its format. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it fails to provide any parameter semantics.
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 ('Delete') and the resource ('a creator clip'). It aligns well with the tool name and distinguishes from siblings like cassette_delete_footage or cassette_delete_trend by specifying 'clip'. However, it could be more precise about what 'creator clip' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 (e.g., cassette_update_clip or cassette_get_clip). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing the clip ID or whether the clip must be in a certain state. The description assumes the agent already knows when deletion 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?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'Delete' without mentioning side effects, permissions, reversibility, or any consequences. This is insufficient 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence of six words, front-loading the core action. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter descriptions, the description fails to provide enough context for correct tool usage. Key information about parameter meaning, prerequisites, and effects is missing.
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, and the description offers no explanation of the 'clipId' or 'fileId' parameters. There is no guidance on how to obtain these IDs or what they represent, leaving the agent without necessary context.
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 (delete) and the resource (footage file from a clip). It distinguishes from sibling delete tools by specifying 'footage file', though it could explicitly differentiate from cassette_delete_clip or cassette_delete_trend.
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, nor any prerequisites or constraints. The description lacks context about the effect on the clip or when deletion 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'List creator clips' with no mention of being read-only (implied but not explicit), no disclosure of any side effects, no information about authentication or rate limits. The scope parameter is not described.
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 concise (3 words), which is generally positive, but it lacks structure and important context. It is too terse to be fully helpful.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the scope filter, return format, or any behavioral details.
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 the description does not explain the 'scope' parameter or its enum values (owned, shared, all). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is insufficient given the low coverage.
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 (list) and resource (creator clips). However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like cassette_list_footages or cassette_list_trends, which have similar verb-resource combinations.
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 its siblings, such as cassette_get_clip for retrieving a single clip or cassette_create_clip for creating one. No context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
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 behavior. It only says 'update,' which implies mutation, but it does not state whether the tool replaces or merges with existing time blocks, whether it can modify only specified entries, or what side effects occur (e.g., overwrites all previous scenario data). Key behavioral traits are missing.
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 short sentence with no extraneous text. It is concise, but it sacrifices completeness. The sentence earns its place by stating the core action, but it could be improved by adding brief usage notes without becoming verbose.
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 complexity (2 parameters, scenario is an array of objects with 4 required nested fields), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the behavior of the update (replace vs. merge), the allowed types, or return values. No output schema is provided, so the agent lacks information on what to expect. The tool's context signals misleadingly state 'Has nested objects: false,' but the schema clearly contains nested objects; this is not the description's fault, but the description does not compensate for the complexity.
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 add meaning. It mentions 'scenario time blocks for a clip,' relating clipId to the clip and scenario to time blocks, but it does not explain the structure of the scenario array (start/end times, type, text) or that types are restricted to an enum. The agent gets minimal guidance on how to construct the scenario parameter correctly.
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 a specific action: 'Update scenario time blocks for a clip.' It clearly identifies the resource (scenario time blocks) and the operation (update), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cassette_update_clip (which updates clip properties) or cassette_create_clip. However, the term 'scenario time blocks' is not defined, so an agent might not understand what that means without context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 specify prerequisites, when it is appropriate, or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives such as cassette_update_clip for other clip updates. The agent is left 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not mention the effects of the 'replace' parameter, authentication requirements, or any potential destructive behavior. The description only states what is uploaded, not the consequences.
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 concise at one sentence, but it lacks necessary detail. It could benefit from additional structure or information without being overly verbose.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to provide context on return values, error conditions, or behavior. For a tool with potential destructive impact (replace), this is insufficient.
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 parameters. While 'clipId' and 'localPath' are implied, their purpose, format, or constraints are not detailed. The 'replace' parameter is not described at all.
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 (Upload), the resource (final video for a clip), and the source (local path). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like cassette_upload_footage or cassette_upload_track_file, which have similar upload functions.
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 cassette_upload_footage or cassette_upload_track_file. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., clip must exist) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only states the basic action but omits success/failure behavior, side effects (e.g., overwriting), permissions needed, or rate limits. This leaves the agent uncertain about the operation's implications.
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 extremely concise, using a single sentence with no redundancy. However, conciseness sacrifices necessary detail; it could be restructured to include more information without becoming verbose.
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 (2 string params, no output schema), the description lacks practical context such as file size limits, supported formats, or error scenarios. The absence of this information means the agent cannot reliably use the tool without additional knowledge.
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%, meaning no parameter documentation in the description. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema field names and types. For a two-parameter tool, this is inadequate; the agent lacks details like format expectations for local path or how clipId is used.
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 (Upload), the resource (footage file to a clip), and the source (local path). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like cassette_upload_final or cassette_upload_track_file, missing a chance to specify what type of footage or constraints.
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. No mention of prerequisites, such as whether the clip must already exist or what file formats are supported. The agent receives no context to decide between this and other upload tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is solely responsible for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get', implying read-only, but does not confirm idempotency, required permissions, or error conditions. This is insufficient 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with one sentence and no wasted words. However, the brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it less helpful than a slightly longer description would be.
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 simplicity, the description is minimally complete for retrieving a clip by ID. However, it omits context about how to find the ID, what the response contains, and any prerequisites. An agent would lack enough 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.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'by ID' but does not elaborate on the parameter's format, constraints, or how to obtain the clipId. The parameter name is self-explanatory but the description adds no meaningful detail beyond what the name implies.
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) and resource (a creator clip by ID). It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not differentiate from other 'get' tools like cassette_get_track or cassette_get_final.
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 (e.g., cassette_list_clips for multiple clips, or other get tools). The description lacks any usage context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, potential side effects, or authentication needs. It is too brief.
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?
Single sentence, no redundant information. However, it sacrifices completeness 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?
No output schema and description omits details about what 'final video metadata' and 'post links' include. Fails to clarify when a clip is considered 'final'.
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% and description does not explain the clipId parameter beyond its name. No mention of format, source, or constraints.
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 final video metadata and post links for a clip, but does not differentiate from sibling tool cassette_get_clip, which likely retrieves clip data.
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 cassette_get_clip or cassette_list_clips. No context on prerequisites or workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists actions but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether operations are destructive (e.g., revoke is potentially destructive), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description only enumerates actions without explaining consequences 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main verb. It quickly communicates the tool's domain. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the action list for readability, but overall it is 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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on expected return values, error cases, or usage patterns. It does not explain the relationship between actions (e.g., invite vs accept) or provide examples, 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.
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. While it lists possible actions in the text (mapping to the 'action' enum), it does not explain other parameters like 'clipId', 'collaboratorUserId', 'role', or 'invitationId'. Users must infer their meaning from the action names, which is insufficient.
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 'Manage clip collaboration: list, create, invite, accept, revoke, or change role' clearly states the tool's purpose as handling clip sharing operations. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cassette_create_clip or cassette_update_clip which focus on clip creation or metadata, not sharing. However, the phrase 'manage clip collaboration' could be more explicit about the resource being shares or permissions.
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. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use this vs cassette_update_clip for sharing scenarios. The description does not provide context about prerequisites (e.g., being the clip owner) or when to prefer sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update', implying mutation, but does not mention idempotency, permission requirements, error states, or effects on other records. This is insufficient for an agent to infer safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading key information. However, it is too brief and could be expanded slightly without losing 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?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks sufficient detail for an agent to understand the full context, such as return values, error handling, or side effects. It barely covers the basics.
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%, and description only mentions three optional parameters (selected, rating, note) but not the required clipId and fileId. The description adds marginal meaning but fails to explain critical required 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 the action (Update) and the resource (footage review metadata) with specific fields (selected, rating, note). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cassette_update_clip or cassette_update_track_metadata by focusing on footage review.
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. It does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools like cassette_update_clip_notes might be more 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 bears full burden. It discloses that it creates a clip (mutation) but omits any side effects, permission requirements, or behavior details such as whether the trend is modified or what the default scenario template entails.
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 one concise sentence with no excessive wording. It efficiently conveys the core 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?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the action but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., trend existence) and return value.
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 trendId has no schema description and the tool description adds no context about what a trendId is or how to obtain it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 clip') and the source ('from a trend') with a detail about default scenario template. It differentiates from siblings like cassette_create_clip by specifying 'from a trend', making purpose clear.
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 cassette_create_clip or prerequisites (e.g., existing trend). The description implicitly suggests a use case but provides no explicit 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?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action without any additional context. It does not mention whether the update is safe, requires permissions, or has 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.
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 there is no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the tool description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, valid input formats, or success/failure behavior, leaving the agent without crucial context.
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%, meaning no parameters are described in the input schema (only names and types). The description adds no meaning beyond the property names, such as explaining that clipId identifies the video and the other fields are platform-specific links.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'social post links on the final video'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like cassette_update_clip or cassette_update_clip_notes, which handle different aspects.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. Sibling tools exist for other updates, but no guidance 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 provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a prerequisite and lists file types. It fails to mention what happens during/after upload (e.g., overwriting, versioning), success/failure behavior, permissions, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence plus a requirement, which is concise. However, it omits critical information that could be added without much verbosity (e.g., behavior, parameter details). It is not overly verbose but leaves gaps.
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 complexity (upload with multiple file types, 3 required params, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, file size limits, and how the Google Drive link is used. Sibling tools exist but no differentiation is offered.
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?
Only 33% of parameters have schema descriptions (localPath). The tool description does not explain trackId or fileType beyond the bare enum list. The enum values are listed but not described (e.g., what 'promo' vs 'verticalVideos' implies). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a strong verb ('Upload') and specifies the resource ('artwork, audio, promo images, footages, or vertical videos from a local path'). It clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling upload tools (e.g., upload_footage, upload_final) by focusing on track-related file types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions a prerequisite ('Requires Google Drive linked') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like upload_footage or upload_final. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as reversibility, side effects, required permissions, or impact on related data.
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 efficient sentence, but its brevity sacrifices critical behavioral and parameter context, making it slightly under specified.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete; it omits success/failure responses, required permissions, and any prerequisites, leaving the agent underinformed.
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 to the 'trendId' parameter beyond the schema's minimal requirement; the agent gains no insight into what the ID represents or where to obtain it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'trend', and it uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings like cassette_create_trend or cassette_list_trends.
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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives; it only implies usage by describing the action, with no exclusion criteria 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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'update' without detailing whether notes are replaced or appended, or if the clip must exist. Minimal 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with the key action. Efficient for a simple tool.
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?
For a 2-param update tool with no output schema, the description omits prerequisites, return values, and behavioral details. Incomplete for practical use without further context.
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 has 0% description coverage. The description adds only 'freeform' to notes, but does not explain clipId or notes format. Very limited added meaning beyond parameter names.
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 (update) and resource (freeform notes on a clip). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cassette_update_clip which likely updates other clip properties.
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 such as cassette_update_clip. No context on 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 exist, so the description must carry behavioral details. It indicates mutation but lacks information about return values, side effects, idempotency, or any constraints. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at 16 words across two sentences, with no wasted words. However, it may be too terse given the complexity of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for a 6-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations. It does not explain the response format, error cases, or the overall workflow beyond being the first step. An agent lacks critical context 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 coverage is only 33%, with most parameters lacking descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific information, failing to compensate for the low coverage. The agent gains no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'create' and the resource 'music track/release', and identifies it as the first step in a workflow, distinguishing it from update or delete sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage as the first step of track creation, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like cassette_get_track or cassette_update_track_metadata.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, error handling, or what happens if the clipId is invalid. Minimal 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence with no fluff, but it is underspecified. It earns its place but could include more key details without sacrificing 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?
Given no output schema and a simple resource, the description fails to hint at the return structure (e.g., list of IDs, metadata). It lacks completeness for an agent to understand what the output will contain.
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 adds no extra meaning to the 'clipId' parameter beyond its name. No format, examples, or source guidance provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'footages', and the scope 'uploaded for a clip', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'cassette_list_clips' and 'cassette_list_track_files'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a clip ID is known, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cassette_review_footage' or provide 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a list (implying read-only), but does not elaborate on return format, pagination, or any side effects. The description offers minimal insight beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb and resource. Every word serves a purpose, with no filler or redundant 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?
For a simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and allowed file types. However, it omits details like output structure (e.g., list of file names or URLs), prerequisites (e.g., track existence), and whether the list is exhaustive. The description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to use without guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 50% description coverage (only fileType has a schema description). The description lists the enum values (audio, promo, footages, verticalVideos, video) matching the schema, adding context that these are file categories. However, trackId is not explained, leaving its meaning implicit. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the schema's gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'uploaded files on a track', enumerating the specific file categories (audio, promo, footages, verticalVideos, video) and the purpose 'to verify uploads'. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like cassette_upload_track_file (upload) and cassette_get_track (metadata) as a read-oriented listing operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a purpose ('to verify uploads') but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. cassette_list_clips or cassette_list_footages), nor does it mention any prerequisites or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage context 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.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. 'List' implies read-only, but no explicit statement about idempotency, side effects, or data freshness. Adequate for a simple list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose. Perfect conciseness for a zero-parameter list tool.
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?
Minimal but sufficient for a simple list with no parameters. Could mention if results are paginated or ordered, but not essential given simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. Description correctly leaves param details unstated as there are none.
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 'List saved trend videos' clearly states the action (list) and resource (saved trend videos), distinguishing it from sibling tools that create, delete, or update trends.
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, such as when to list trends versus search or filter. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the search parameter but omits details like search method (prefix/exact), case sensitivity, return format, and error states.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word adds value, achieving maximum 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?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the search returns, expected result format, or pagination behavior, making it incomplete for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'query' parameter. The tool description adds the collaboration invite context but does not significantly enhance understanding of the parameter beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the resource (Cassette users), action (search), parameter (by email), and use case (for creator clip collaboration invites). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that are about clips, tracks, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to use it (for collaboration invites), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, which would improve guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It indicates mutation but omits details on error handling (invalid clipId), update semantics (merge vs replace), permissions, or side effects. Insufficient for safe agent use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundancy, efficiently conveys core action without filler.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, and description is too brief. For an update tool with arbitrary updates object, more detail on behavior (merge vs replace, return value) and differentiation from similar tools (e.g., cassette_update_clip_notes) is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has two params with 0% description coverage. Description adds examples of updateable fields (name, status, progress), partially compensating for missing schema descriptions. Does not explain clipId or updates structure explicitly.
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 explicitly states the verb 'update' and resource 'clip fields', with examples (name, status, progress). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like create, delete, get, and list clips.
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?
Context implies use for modifying clip fields, with siblings covering creation, deletion, and retrieval. No explicit when-not or alternative suggestions, but clarity suffices.
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 details. It only says 'Update track fields' without specifying permissions, side effects, partial update behavior, or response format. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the action, endpoint, and affected fields.
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?
For a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description only lists fields. It lacks information on return values, error handling, partial updates, or any post-update behavior, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is only 42%, but the description compensates by listing 11 of the 12 parameters (excluding trackId) that lack schema descriptions. This adds meaningful context about available fields, though trackId is omitted in the list.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it updates track fields via PATCH /metadata and lists all modifiable fields, making the action and resource unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cassette_create_track' or 'cassette_get_track'.
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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cassette_create_track for new tracks, cassette_get_track for reading). It implies updating existing track metadata but lacks when-not or prerequisite conditions.
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 bare description only mentions what data is retrieved. It fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or any other behavioral traits. The burden is on the description, and it falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary 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?
For a parameterless tool, the description adequately specifies the data returned. However, with no output schema, more detail on the return format would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema description coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but baseline for zero parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves creator billing info including subscription tier, limits, and clip count. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like cassette_get_account.
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 retrieving billing info but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor 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.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description adds context about output content but doesn't disclose side effects, permissions, or idempotency. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence defines the action, second provides usage guidance. Perfectly front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description covers the return value ('full metadata and file references'). For a simple get tool with one parameter, it is largely complete, though missing error modes.
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?
Only one parameter 'trackId' with no schema description. The description mentions 'by ID' but doesn't explain format or source, leaving the agent to infer. Schema coverage is 0% and description does not compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'track by ID', and the output 'with full metadata and file references'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cassette_get_clip'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Use after creation to verify the workflow', providing a clear usage context. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but sufficient for a simple get tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the scope of the retrieval but does not mention read-only nature, authentication needs, or any side effects. For a simple getter, this is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that concisely lists the information returned. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 parameterless getter with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and its purpose. No additional context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add param info; it correctly implies no inputs are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Cassette account status', listing specific details (profile, Google Drive link, music/creator tiers, readiness for uploads). It distinguishes from sibling tools, which focus on clips, tracks, trends, etc.
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 mentioning 'readiness for uploads', but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are named, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the tool is a 'get' operation returning a URL, but does not specify side effects (e.g., whether it initiates a session) or idempotency. More context on the OAuth flow would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no output schema and one parameter, the description is adequate. It implies the return value (a URL) and the usage context. However, it could explicitly state the return format or mention error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameter 'frontendUrl' beyond what the schema already provides ('Optional frontend URL for OAuth redirect').
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 ('get Google Drive OAuth URL'), the purpose ('link Drive'), and the prerequisite ('required before file uploads'). It uniquely identifies the tool among siblings, as no other tool handles OAuth.
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 indicates when to use the tool ('before file uploads'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or any alternatives, which are not needed given the uniqueness of the tool.
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/cassette-music-management-tool/cassette-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server