vibeMK

by chexma

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.3.10
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping or ambiguous purposes, such as get_rulesets, list_rulesets, show_ruleset, and search_rulesets, which could confuse an agent. The distinction between 'debug', 'test', and 'get' is not consistently clear.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names mix verbs like 'get', 'list', 'show', 'search', 'debug', and 'test' without a consistent pattern. Also, some use 'create' while others use 'add' (e.g., add_comment vs create_rule), and 'bulk' variants are not uniformly named.
Tool Count2/5
111 tools is excessive for a single MCP server, even for a complex system like CheckMK. Many tools are redundant or could be combined, making the surface area overwhelming and prone to errors.
Completeness3/5
The toolset covers many major CheckMK domains (hosts, services, groups, rules, downtimes, metrics), but there are inconsistencies and gaps, such as missing update operations for some entities (e.g., no update for host groups beyond creation/deletion) and redundancy in discovery tools.
Average 3.2/5 across 111 of 111 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 21, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under GPL 3.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Start enhanced service discovery' without explaining whether it is asynchronous, what it returns, whether it modifies state, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that initiates a process.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with an emoji, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks necessary detail and does not front-load key information. The brevity is not beneficial because it omits critical context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain modes, host lists, bulk processing, waiting behavior, or what 'enhanced' means. An agent cannot determine how to invoke this correctly or what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning; it does not explain modes, bulk sizes, or the full_scan flag beyond what the schema already states. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Discover') and resource ('services'), and indicates it starts discovery for hosts. However, 'enhanced' is vague and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like start_service_discovery or start_bulk_discovery. The purpose is understood but not sharply defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as vibemk_start_service_discovery and vibemk_start_bulk_discovery exist, but the description does not mention them or any selection criteria. An agent has no basis to choose this over others.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. 'Activate changes' implies a mutating, potentially irreversible action, but no details about impact on systems, downtime, or rollback are given. This is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with no fluff, but it achieves brevity at the expense of necessary detail. Structure is simple, yet the lack of explanatory context makes it feel incomplete rather than efficiently written.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's role in a change workflow, the description omits crucial context: what triggers activation, whether it's reversible, and how it relates to get_pending_changes. It feels isolated and does not provide enough background for an agent to use it correctly in a larger operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters have descriptions, but they are minimal and ambiguous. 'List of site names' is generic and doesn't clarify whether empty means all sites. 'Force activation' for force_foreign_changes doesn't explain what 'foreign' means, leaving the parameter's purpose unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (activate/deploy) and the resource (pending configuration changes). It conveys the core purpose effectively, though it could more explicitly contrast with related tools like get_pending_changes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when this tool should be used, such as after making changes or before monitoring. It does not reference alternatives like get_pending_changes or indicate typical workflow ordering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses nothing about side effects, whether the user or group must exist, reversibility, or what a successful removal implies. For a mutating operation this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The text is short but redundant—the exact same phrase is duplicated, which pads the description without adding information. It is under-specification disguised as brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry more weight. It explains nothing about behavior, expectations, or failure modes, leaving the agent to guess.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters (username, group_name) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a verb and resource ('Remove user from contact group'), so the action is identifiable. However, the phrase is repeated verbatim twice, adding no differentiation from the sibling add_user_to_group or the contact-group CRUD tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus add_user_to_group, update_contact_group, or delete_contact_group. The agent gets no context about prerequisites or selection 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?
With no annotations, the description must convey side effects. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no changes will be made. There is no mention of error behavior, rate limits, or idempotency, so the agent lacks full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that is not verbose and gets to the point quickly. It lacks any structured breakdown, but for such a simple tool, the conciseness is commendable. It could add more detail without becoming bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal and does not explain what 'comprehensive' includes, nor does it mention the expected output or any related concepts. Given the simple interface (one parameter), it is somewhat complete, but it leaves significant ambiguity relative to sibling tools that have more specific scopes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes host_name as 'Name of the host', which is basic but covers 100% of the parameter. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as expected format, whether it's case-sensitive, or how to obtain the name. Since coverage is full, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool retrieves comprehensive host information, but 'comprehensive' is vague and does not specify what fields or data are included. It also does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_host_status or get_host_config, leaving scope ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools with overlapping purpose. No conditions, use cases, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess based solely on the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'List rulesets' and 'Show available rulesets', which implies a read operation but does not disclose pagination, result size, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no safety annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief, almost tautological with the tool name. While concise, it is under-specified and adds little beyond restating the purpose, lacking any structural benefit such as caveats or related tools.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool, the description might suffice on its own, but the presence of overlapping siblings (vibemk_list_rulesets, vibemk_search_rulesets) and no mention of return format or limitations makes it incomplete for reliable agent selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the 'search' parameter with its purpose. The description adds no extra meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('List rulesets') and resource, and adds 'Show available rulesets' for clarity. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling vibemk_list_rulesets, which likely performs the same function, so it misses the differentiation that would earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vibemk_search_rulesets, vibemk_show_ruleset, or vibemk_list_rulesets. The description offers no context, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to guess.
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 and the description only says 'schedule downtime'; it does not disclose side effects such as whether an activation is required, whether existing downtimes are affected, or what permissions are needed. This leaves the agent guessing about the operation's behavioral footprint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and readable but redundant: 'Schedule downtime - Schedule maintenance downtime' essentially states the same idea twice. It is not harmful, but the repetition does not add information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a scheduling operation with six parameters and no output schema, the description omits important context: which target fields apply to which downtime type, whether host_name or service_description must be paired, and what the return/confirmation behavior is. The schema alone partially fills this, but the description does not make the tool usable confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover 100% of the six parameters, but they are minimal boilerplate (e.g., 'Type: host, service, or hostgroup'). The description itself adds no parameter semantics, and the required/optional relationship between downtime_type, host_name, and service_description is not clarified. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description identifies the action and resource — scheduling downtime — and the 'maintenance downtime' phrase adds light context. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tools vibemk_schedule_host_downtime and vibemk_schedule_service_downtime, so an agent cannot tell which scope this generic call covers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to choose this tool over the more specific schedule_host_downtime/schedule_service_downtime siblings, nor on how to select host_name vs service_description based on downtime_type. The description simply restates the action without usage 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 must disclose side effects, but it only says 'update'. It does not mention whether changes are applied immediately, require activation, are reversible, or how partial failures are handled.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one compact sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose and scope efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a bulk update operation, critical context is missing: the expected payload format for 'entries', what update operations are supported, whether the operation is atomic, and what the response contains. The description is far too thin for practical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'entries' is described only as 'List of host update entries', providing no structure, required fields, or example. The description adds almost no semantic value beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('hosts'), and the word 'multiple' signals the bulk scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the singular update_host tool beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this bulk operation versus update_host or bulk_create_hosts. It only restates the tool's name without providing selection criteria or examples.
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?
The description implies a read-only search operation but does not explicitly state side effects or lack thereof. With no annotations to rely on, the full burden is on the description, which fails to disclose whether this modifies state or is safe to call repeatedly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using one short sentence with no unnecessary words. It gets straight to the point and avoids fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, and the description does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., list of matching rulesets, count, or details). For a search tool, the return format is essential context that is missing, making the description incomplete for an agent needing to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all five parameters (name, used, folder, fulltext, deprecated). The description adds minimal value beyond a generic mention of 'text, folder, name', which omits 'used' and 'deprecated'. It does not introduce new meaning, so it stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches rulesets with filters, using the verb 'search' and object 'rulesets'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_rulesets (list all) and get_ruleset (get specific) via the 'search' and 'find' terminology, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling ruleset tools (e.g., get_rulesets, show_ruleset, list_rulesets). The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to prefer alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update host tag - Modify host tag group', which gives no information about side effects, permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, error behavior, or what happens to existing assignments. 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, but the phrase 'Modify host tag group' is redundant with 'Update host tag', adding no new information. The emoji adds no value. It is concise but slightly wasteful with the repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides insufficient context. It does not explain how parameters interrelate (e.g., how 'tags' list is structured, what 'repair' does, or whether 'title' and 'topic' are optional). The schema descriptions help, but the description lacks operational context needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning or context for parameters like 'repair', 'tags', or 'topic' beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents the parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update/modify) and the resource (host tag group). It distinguishes from create/delete/get siblings by the verb, though it doesn't specify what aspects of the tag group can be modified. It is unambiguous but lacks detail beyond the basic resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus creating a new tag group or deleting one, nor any prerequisites like requiring the tag to exist. The description implies it is for existing tags but does not state it explicitly or provide context on typical usage scenarios.
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?
There are no annotations and the description does not disclose side effects, permissions required, idempotency, duplicate handling, or failure modes. The description only restates the action without any behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, but it is redundant: 'Add user to contact group' and 'Assign user to contact group' convey the same meaning. The second clause does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks essential context such as prerequisites (user/group existence), expected effects, potential errors, or output behavior. With no output schema and no additional guidance, an agent may not be able to use this tool correctly in edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameters have descriptions in the schema, but they are tautological ('Username', 'Contact group name') and add no real meaning beyond the field names. Schema coverage is high, so the baseline is 3, but no additional semantic information is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action and resource: adding a user to a contact group. It is unambiguous and effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like remove_user_from_group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_contact_group, create_contact_group, or remove_user_from_group. The only implied usage comes from the tool's name and minimal description.
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 present and the description provides no information about side effects, such as whether changes are immediately activated, whether partial failures can occur, or whether the operation is destructive. This lack of transparency is significant for a bulk write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and to the point, with no unnecessary words or repetition. It effectively conveys the core purpose in one sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple, the description omits important context such as whether activation of changes is needed, how partial failures are handled, or what the return value looks like. Given the absence of an output schema, this missing information reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions for the parameters are already clear (name, alias), and the tool description adds no additional meaning. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description could have clarified expected values or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update) and the resource (service groups) and indicates bulk operation, distinguishing it from single-update tools. However, it does not mention which attributes can be updated, though the schema provides that.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for multiple service groups but does not explicitly contrast it with the single-update sibling (vibemk_update_service_group) or state when to choose this tool over alternatives. No direct usage guidance 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 and no detail about side effects, irreversibility, or whether deletion requires activation in Checkmk. 'Delete/Remove' signals destruction but nothing more.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very short and scannable; however, the dash phrase 'Remove time period' is redundant with the first clause.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Does not mention output/return behavior, error cases, or activation implications. For a destructive mutation, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter is described with its role ('time period name to delete') and schema coverage is 100%; the description adds no further semantics beyond the name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb and object: delete a time period by name. It identifies the delete operation among the sibling time period tools, though it relies on the name rather than explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus create/update/get timeperiods, nor any contextual conditions. The description only restates the action.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, but it merely says 'modify existing monitoring rule.' It does not mention whether changes require activation, whether it is a partial or full update, or what happens to unspecified fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise line that front-loads the primary verb and object. There is no unnecessary fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has complex parameters like conditions and rule_config with no output schema or behavioral detail. The description is far too minimal for an agent to correctly invoke this update operation without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has descriptions for all parameters, but they are tautological (e.g., 'Rule comment', 'Rule conditions') and add no real meaning. Because coverage is high, the baseline is 3, but the descriptions do not clarify expected structures or formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool updates/modifies an existing monitoring rule, which distinguishes it from create/delete/move operations. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the intent is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus creating, deleting, or moving rules. No prerequisites, expected inputs, or conditions for use are described.
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 and no description of side effects, irreversibility, or impact on hosts associated with the group. The description only repeats the action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very brief but redundant: 'Delete host group' and 'Remove host group' say the same thing. Could be tightened to a single clear phrase.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple operation with one parameter, but lacks important context such as whether deletion is permanent, cascades to hosts, or can fail if the group is in use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers the single 'name' parameter with a matching description; description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action (delete) and resource (host group), distinguishing it from create/update/get host group operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites for deleting a host group.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only says 'Send test notification' without revealing whether it actually delivers a real notification, what happens on failure, or any impact on the system. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely sends something externally.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and free of fluff, but it also lacks substantive content. The second phrase 'Send test notification' is nearly a repetition of the first. It's concise but not structured to front-load critical information, and it doesn't earn its place by adding new value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple test tool with no output schema, the description should at least explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results. It also doesn't clarify what 'contact' means (email, phone, etc.) or whether the notification is real. The tool is functionally incomplete for an agent to use with confidence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (contact, message), so coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Send test notification'. It identifies the tool's purpose as sending a test notification, which distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that handle actual Checkmk operations. However, it doesn't specify what kind of test or what 'notification' entails (e.g., email, push, etc.), 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of context, prerequisites, or when to prefer it over similar testing tools like vibemk_test_direct_url or vibemk_test_all_endpoints. The agent gets no help deciding when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It only says 'validate,' which implies read-only, but it does not explicitly state that no changes are made or what permissions are required. This lack of transparency could be misleading if validation triggers background actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but redundant, repeating 'Validate host config' and 'Validate host configuration.' It is structured as a single sentence but could be more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description does not explain the validation logic, possible outcomes, or how the parameters affect validation. There is no output schema, and the interaction between folder, operation, and attributes is unclear, making the tool's behavior incomplete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Each parameter has a description, but they are minimal and vague. For example, 'attributes' gives no structure or example, and 'operation' lists allowed values but is not enforced as an enum. The descriptions do not sufficiently clarify expected input formats or relationships between parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (validate) and the resource (host configuration). It also specifies the context ('before applying changes'), which distinguishes it from create/update tools. However, it repeats the same phrase twice, which slightly detracts from clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a temporal hint ('before applying changes') indicating when to use it relative to create/update operations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions for when not to use it, so guidance is limited.
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 supplied, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It merely states the action without explaining consequences such as suppressing notifications, requiring specific permissions, or altering the acknowledged state in a way that affects future monitoring behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two short sentences that capture the essential purpose without any redundant wording or filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded, immediately conveying the tool's core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is simple and no output schema is present, the description should still explain what 'acknowledge' means in operational terms. It does not mention that acknowledging typically dismisses or marks a problem as handled, nor does it clarify parameter usage beyond the schema, leaving a knowledgeable agent to infer expected behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides descriptions for all parameters, exceeding the 80% coverage threshold, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. Descriptions like 'Type: host or service' and 'Service description (for service ack)' add some useful context, but they remain minimal and do not elaborate on value constraints or relationships between parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (acknowledge) and the target (host or service problem), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like add_comment or schedule_downtime, the name and description leave little doubt about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as adding a comment or rescheduling a check. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage 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 carries the full burden. It discloses the automatic bulk API behavior for multiple hosts, which is a useful trait. However, it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., modifying monitoring state), permissions, prerequisites, or failure behavior. For a creation operation, this is minimal disclosure; it also omits that 'bake_agent' is only relevant in bulk mode (though schema covers it).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key behavior about bulk API. It is concise with no filler, but it omits useful context like when to use it or what it returns. The length is appropriate for the limited information provided, though it could be expanded slightly without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complex oneOf schema with two modes, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error scenarios, or prerequisites. It also doesn't clarify when to use this tool versus the dedicated bulk tool, which is a notable gap given the overlapping sibling. The agent lacks enough context to confidently invoke it in all cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds a note about automatic bulk API usage, which relates to the 'hosts' parameter but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond the schema. The 'bake_agent' parameter is described in the schema as 'bulk mode only', which is not mentioned in the description, but the schema already covers it, so the description adds little value here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Create host(s)), the resource (host(s)), and the effect (add to monitoring). It also notes the automatic bulk API usage for multiple hosts. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'vibemk_bulk_create_hosts', which could cause confusion, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vibemk_bulk_create_hosts' or 'vibemk_create_cluster_host'. It only mentions that multiple hosts automatically use the bulk API, implying it handles both modes, but doesn't state conditions for preferring a dedicated bulk tool or any exclusions. The oneOf schema hints at modes but doesn't give usage 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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Create password - Store new password securely,' which implies a mutating action but does not disclose potential failures, required fields, idempotency, or side effects. More detail is needed for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using only a few words to convey the primary purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no unnecessary filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and the description does not mention return values, error behavior, or the need for required parameters. Given the seven parameters and write operation, the missing operational context leaves the agent under-informed for successful invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters themselves; the schema's generic descriptions like 'Password identifier' and 'Password value' remain the only source of parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly identifies the action as creating/storing a new password, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling password tools like update_password and delete_password, though it lacks additional context about what the password is used for.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vibemk_update_password or vibemk_get_passwords. There is no mention of required versus optional parameters or common use cases, so the agent receives little decision-making help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It states that a rule is created but does not mention that changes may require activation, that rulesets must exist, or any failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary wording. It is concise and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of nested objects (rule_config, conditions) and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. An agent would need more context on how to structure rule_config and conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and brief schema descriptions, leaving nested objects like rule_config and conditions largely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the verb (create) and resource (monitoring rule), but it does not distinguish this generic rule creation from sibling tools like vibemk_create_host_contactgroup_rule or vibemk_create_host_hostgroup_rule.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of the many rule-related sibling tools, nor are any preconditions or alternatives mentioned. The description only restates the action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose side effects such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or any permission requirements. The description carries the full burden but only states the basic creation action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but somewhat redundant, repeating 'Create service group' in both the prefix and the main clause. It could be more concise without losing meaning, but it is not overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple creation tool, the description is adequate but omits potential relevant context such as uniqueness constraints, relationship to existing groups, or downstream effects. It does not fully prepare the agent for edge cases or alternative actions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'name' (including format constraints) and 'alias'. The description adds no additional detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('service group'), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'vibemk_bulk_create_service_groups'. The singular phrasing implies a single group, which is sufficient for basic clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vibemk_bulk_create_service_groups' or how it relates to update/delete operations. The description only states the action without context on selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the deletion action without elaborating on consequences such as irreversibility, whether associated data is affected, or any authorization requirements. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise line: '🗑️ Delete password - Remove stored password'. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. While very brief, it is not over-specified and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention that deletion is permanent, whether any related data is removed, or what the expected response or result is. An agent invoking this tool would have no warning about consequences, making it risky to call without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the sole parameter 'ident' with the description 'Password identifier to delete', achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so it does not compensate beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'password', with a clarifying phrase 'Remove stored password'. This clearly indicates the action and target. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like update_password or create_password, though the name and verb are sufficient for basic differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or scenarios where deletion is appropriate. The only implicit context is that it is for deleting passwords, but no explicit comparison to related operations (e.g., update_password) 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?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'List comments' which implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, return format, or any filtering logic. The lack of explicit transparency is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the action 'List comments'. The second part 'Show host/service comments' is somewhat redundant but not harmful. It is concise overall, though a slightly tighter phrasing would improve structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with two optional filters, the description provides enough context to understand the basic purpose. It does not mention output format or edge cases, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters ('Filter by host name', 'Filter by service'). The tool description adds no further semantic detail beyond restating the scope. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate and the description does not elevate it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists comments and implies the scope (host/service). It is distinguishable from the sibling 'add_comment' tool, but does not explicitly mention the read-only nature or what types of comments are included beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for reading comments, nor does it reference the related 'add_comment' or other retrieval tools. The user is left to infer usage solely from the action verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It implies a read-only query, but it does not disclose output format, pagination, permission requirements, error behavior, or how problems are defined beyond 'current problems'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It directly conveys the tool's purpose and the optional filter is covered by the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for a simple read-only query, but it lacks usage context, output expectations, and differentiation from similar status/problem-related tools. It is not severely incomplete, but an agent would benefit from more detail about the returned data and when to prefer this tool over alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter host_name is adequately described in the schema as 'Filter by host name'. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is complete for the single parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it retrieves current problems for all hosts and services, and the optional host_name filter is self-explanatory. It is distinguishable from general status tools like get_host_status by focusing on problems, though it could be more explicit about whether acknowledged/downtime problems are included.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus related tools such as get_host_status, get_service_status, get_comments, or get_downtimes. The description does not mention prerequisites, recommended scenarios, or alternatives.
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 carries full responsibility. It only says 'retrieve', implying read-only but not explicitly stating it, nor disclosing return format, side effects, or limitations. The minimal wording fails to provide 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded with the action. However, it includes slight redundancy ('Get custom graph' vs 'Retrieve predefined custom graph data') and lacks depth, though for a simple tool it is appropriately brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is insufficient for an agent to understand what a custom graph is, what data it returns, or how it fits into the broader monitoring workflow. With no output schema or annotations, the description should compensate but doesn't.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters (reduce, time_range, custom_graph_id). The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameter usage or relationships, so it neither helps nor hurts beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a predefined custom graph, using specific verbs ('Get', 'Retrieve') and a specific resource ('custom graph'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by being the only graph-specific tool, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions like 'use for displaying pre-configured graphs' or contrast with metric tools such as get_host_metrics.
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?
There are no annotations and the description does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect free. It says 'Show' but does not disclose whether it polls, triggers anything, or requires certain permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, using a single sentence and an emoji. It contains no fluffy or redundant information, fitting the simple one-parameter operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks context about the discovery workflow, such as what the returned job status looks like, whether it is the latest job or a specific job ID, or how it relates to other discovery tools. The lack of an output schema and any explanation of return values leaves significant ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, host_name, is described with a clear purpose ('Host name to check background job status'). However, no additional details are given about expected format, case sensitivity, or validation, so it only minimally exceeds the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly indicates the tool is for retrieving discovery job status for a host, distinguishing it from other discovery-related tools that start or wait for discovery. The verb 'Get' and resource 'discovery background job' are specific, though 'last' adds 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar discovery-related siblings (e.g., get_discovery_status, start_service_discovery, wait_for_discovery). It does not mention whether this returns historical or current status, nor any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Get' and 'Show', implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, or clarify whether it returns results from a background job, pending changes, or the current state of discovered services. This ambiguity is significant given the many discovery-related siblings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The emoji adds a minor visual cue without clutter. It is concise and easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal for a tool that has several closely related siblings. It does not explain what 'discovery status' means, whether it refers to a background job or the latest discovery results, or what the output will look like. Since there is no output schema, this lack of context could lead to incorrect usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents host_name with a clear description ('Host name to check discovery status'). The tool description adds no new semantic information about the parameter, only restating 'for a host'. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (get discovery status) and the resource (a host), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_service_discovery and get_bulk_discovery_status by focusing on current results for a single host. However, it could be more explicit about being non-bulk or what 'discovery status' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many discovery-related siblings (e.g., start_service_discovery, get_bulk_discovery_status, wait_for_discovery). The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, permissions required, or what the response contains. It only says 'Show host configuration,' which is insufficient for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, consisting of two phrases. It is efficient, though the 'Get' and 'Show' words are somewhat redundant. Overall, it is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large number of sibling tools, this description is too minimal. It does not clarify what 'host configuration' entails, how it differs from similar host-related tools, or any additional context needed for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the only parameter 'host_name' with a clear definition. The tool description adds no additional meaning, but since schema coverage is high (100%), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Get'/'Show') and the resource ('host configuration'), making the purpose clear. However, it is slightly redundant and does not specify what 'attributes' means, which is a minor gap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus similar host-related tools like get_host_details, get_host_status, or get_host_effective_attributes. The user is left to infer the appropriate 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show current monitoring status' implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify what the response contains, whether it reflects live data, or how errors for unknown hosts are handled. Minimal information beyond the name itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose effectively. However, it is so brief that it may be under-specifying for the agent's needs, though this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) but the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should clarify what 'status' includes (e.g., up/down, metrics, problems) and how it differs from similar tools. This is missing, leaving the agent uncertain about expected results and differentiation from siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (host_name has a description). The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, so it relies entirely on the schema. Per the rubric, a high coverage baseline of 3 applies, and no additional context is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets the current monitoring status of a specific host, using the verb 'Get' with a specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_host_details or get_host_config by focusing on monitoring status, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling host-related tools (e.g., get_host_details, get_service_status). No conditions, exclusions, or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It only says 'get' and 'show', which weakly implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, error behavior, or any other behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and focused. The two clauses are somewhat redundant ('Get service group details' and 'Show detailed information about a specific service group'), but there is no filler or irrelevant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool, the description provides enough high-level purpose and parameter context. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what 'details' actually includes, so the agent is left with some uncertainty about the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides a description for the 'name' parameter, and the tool description adds little beyond repeating that a service group name is used. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is acceptable even though no extra semantic detail is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action (get) and resource (service group details), with a parameter that identifies the specific service group. It is distinguishable from the plural 'get_service_groups' sibling by the singular focus, though it does not explicitly contrast with it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a read operation for a single service group but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_service_groups, list_service_groups, or the create/update/delete siblings. The agent must infer usage from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Extract service performance data from CheckMK metrics API' — this implies a read operation but doesn't disclose auth requirements, aggregation behavior beyond the schema defaults, return format, pagination, or failure modes. For an unannotated tool this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose with an emoji affordance. There's no fluff, but it's so thin it borders on under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness — the brevity is good, yet it sacrifices the behavioral and usage content other dimensions needed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what a caller gets back (metric values, timestamps, units) and how the metrics API behaves. It does neither. For a metrics-extraction tool of moderate complexity, this is incomplete — an agent cannot anticipate the return shape or edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and every parameter (site, reduce, host_name, time_range, metric_name, service_description) already has a meaningful description in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get service metrics' / 'Extract service performance data') and names the data source (CheckMK metrics API). It's clear what the tool does, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from close siblings like vibemk_get_host_metrics, vibemk_get_service_status, or vibemk_search_metrics — the resource distinction ('service' vs 'host') is implied by the name but never stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Given several overlapping siblings (vibemk_get_host_metrics, vibemk_get_service_status, vibemk_search_metrics, vibemk_get_custom_graph), an agent gets no help choosing among them. There are no when/when-not statements or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Show current status of a service' with no detail on what 'status' includes (e.g., state, output, performance), whether it requires specific permissions, or what the response format is. This is minimal disclosure for a read operation that could vary significantly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at two short phrases, with no fluff. However, it is under-specified and lacks structure that would help an agent, such as differentiating from similar tools. Conciseness is good, but it sacrifices useful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining what the response contains, potential error conditions, or how it differs from sibling status tools. None of that is present. Given the complexity (simple tool) it is still incomplete because the agent cannot anticipate the return format or scope of 'status'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptive names and descriptions ('Name of the host' and 'Service description'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not explain the expected format or any constraints, but the schema already does that adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource ('Get service status') and explicitly says 'Show current status of a service'. It is unambiguous about what it does, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like vibemk_get_host_status or vibemk_get_checkmk_services, which also deal with statuses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (get_host_status, get_service_metrics, get_checkmk_services), an agent would have no basis to choose this one without opening schemas or trial and error. No exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists available metrics without explaining what 'available' means, whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or any pagination or filtering behavior. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two short phrases and an emoji, and gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but the lack of structured sections or additional context prevents a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the returned list contains and when to use it. It omits both, and also fails to mention any relationship to sibling tools, leaving the agent without enough context to correctly invoke it in varied scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both host_name and service_description having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—only indicating that service_description is optional for service metrics, which is already implied by the parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'available metrics' with a scope of 'for host or service'. It distinguishes the action of listing available metrics, but does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like vibemk_get_host_metrics or vibemk_search_metrics, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vibemk_get_host_metrics, vibemk_get_service_metrics, or vibemk_search_metrics. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when this listing would be preferred over fetching actual metric data.
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 explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any side effects. It is implied by 'list', but not disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, but it contains slight redundancy ('List all' and 'Show all available'). It is well-structured and free of fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation, the description is adequate. It does not specify the exact content of 'basic information' or clarify the difference from get_rulesets, but it is not misleading. Given the existence of many similar tools, a bit more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions for both parameters (limit and show_deprecated) are clear and cover 100% of the parameters. The description itself adds no additional parameter information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all rulesets with basic information, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from similar tools like search_rulesets or get_ruleset, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_rulesets or get_rulesets. It only states the action without conditions or recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the folder moves to a different parent but says nothing about critical side effects—most notably whether child folders and contained hosts move along, whether existing attributes are preserved, or whether the destination must already exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, with the action stated first. The emoji adds little functional value and the phrase 'Move folder' appears twice, a minor redundancy, but overall it is efficient with no wasted sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a moderate-complexity mutation with no output schema, yet the description omits important operational details: what happens to the folder's contents (hosts/subfolders), whether the destination must be a valid existing parent, and what the tool returns or confirms on success. An agent cannot fully predict the outcome of calling it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both 'folder' (Folder path to move) and 'destination' (New parent folder path). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('folder'), and clarifies the scope ('to different parent'). It distinguishes the tool from folder siblings like create, delete, update, and get, though it is slightly redundant in repeating 'Move folder' twice. It doesn't explicitly contrast with update_folder, which could also alter a folder's position.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like vibemk_update_folder (which might also change folder location/attributes) and vibemk_get_folders, the description provides no exclusions or context for selecting move over update. Usage is only implied by the name.
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 only states the intended effect without mentioning side effects, such as whether the repositioning requires activation (sibling vibemk_activate_changes suggests changes are staged) or that before/after positioning is dependent on target_rule_id.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action verb comes first and every word earns its place. The 'Move rule' segment somewhat restates the tool name, but the clarifying phrase 'Change rule position in ruleset' justifies the sentence, making it efficient though bordering on terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the one-sentence description is inadequate. It omits operational context such as whether changes require activation, how position affects rule precedence, and the dependency between position and target_rule_id.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The schema already documents the position values and target_rule_id's role in before/after positioning; the description adds only the marginal 'in ruleset' framing, which ties the parameters to the domain but does not deepen their meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (Move), resource (rule), and effect ('Change rule position in ruleset'), which is clear and not a tautology. It distinguishes itself from move_host/move_folder siblings by resource and from update_rule by the position-specific focus, though it doesn't name those alternatives explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus vibemk_update_rule, nor does it explain why rule position matters (e.g., evaluation order/precedence in a ruleset). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate 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 does not state whether the operation is read-only, the output format, or any side effects like pagination or rate limiting. As a search tool it is likely harmless, but this is not disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should explain what the search returns (e.g., metric names, time-series data, counts). It does not, and the ambiguity is significant given the existence of list_available_metrics and get_host_metrics. Missing details about result format and pagination make it insufficient for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides descriptions for all five parameters (aggregation, time range, host filter, site filter, service filter), so schema coverage is high. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the existing schema hints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches/filters performance data across hosts and services, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from host/service-specific metric tools by using 'across hosts/services', but the exact nature of the returned data (metric names vs. values) remains somewhat ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus related tools like get_host_metrics, get_service_metrics, or list_available_metrics. The description does not specify conditions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage 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 carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says 'Display detailed information' but doesn't specify what details are returned, whether it's read-only, or any side effects. For a simple read tool, this is 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the emoji and action. However, the brevity comes at the cost of substance; it's concise but not very informative. It earns a 4 for being concise, though not for depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one parameter and no output schema, so the description must explain what 'details' means. It doesn't say whether it returns rules, configuration, or metadata. Given the existence of many sibling ruleset tools, this lack of specificity is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description covers the parameter fully (ruleset_name with an example). The tool description adds nothing beyond that, so it doesn't enhance understanding. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it shows ruleset details for a specific ruleset, using a clear verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like vibemk_get_ruleset, which likely serves the same purpose, so it's not fully distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vibemk_get_ruleset or vibemk_list_rulesets. The description doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Start service discovery' and 'Automatically detect services,' but does not disclose whether this is asynchronous, whether it triggers a background job, whether changes require activation, or what side effects different modes may have.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise and front-loaded. The core purpose is communicated in a single short line with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for the complexity of the tool. It omits mode semantics, async behavior, relationship to bulk discovery, and whether the operation requires later status checks or activation changes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is high: both host_name and mode have descriptions. The description adds little beyond the schema; mode's enum values are listed but their meanings are not explained, and host_name is only minimally described.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action ('Start service discovery') and target ('on a host'), with a plain-language outcome ('Automatically detect services'). It is distinguishable from bulk discovery by singular 'host', though it does not name sibling tools or explain mode variants.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vibemk_start_bulk_discovery or vibemk_discover_services. The description does not explain which mode to choose or when discovery should be run.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that properties are modified, but does not mention whether partial updates are supported, whether members are replaced or appended, failure behavior for nonexistent groups, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and free of unnecessary detail. The single sentence communicates the purpose efficiently, with no redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the update behaves (e.g., whether all properties are replaced, whether the group must exist, or whether members are additive), leaving important context for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters have schema descriptions, so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. However, descriptions like 'Group name', 'Display alias', and 'Group members' are minimal and do not clarify the expected format of members or whether alias is optional in practice.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Update') and resource ('contact group'), and the phrase 'Modify contact group properties' reinforces the intent. It is distinguishable from related sibling tools like create or delete contact group, though it does not elaborate on exact property scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_user_to_group, remove_user_from_group, or create_contact_group. The verb 'Update' implies existing groups, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.
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?
The description mentions no side effects, permissions, or activation requirements. With no annotations, the full burden falls on the description, which is silent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured, using a clear format: emoji, action, resource, and brief explanation. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for a basic understanding but lacks important context such as potential implications (e.g., needing to activate changes) or relationship to other folder operations. It covers the core action but not operational nuances.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter descriptions exist but are minimal: 'New display title', 'Folder path', and 'Folder attributes' provide basic meaning. The 'attributes' parameter is notably vague, and the description adds no extra clarification beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates a folder's properties using the verb 'Update' and resource 'Folder'. It is distinguishable from related folder operations like create, delete, and move.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use create or move folder. It only describes what it does without usage 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 burden. It mentions flexible attribute management but does not disclose side effects such as requiring activation of changes, destructive overwrite behavior, or whether removals are applied immediately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary detail or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks context about return values, activation requirements, failure behavior, and the practical differences between update, overwrite, and remove modes. This is a state-changing operation, and those details matter for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; 'attributes' remains vague and update_mode semantics are only minimally explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool updates a host and modifies host configuration, with flexible attribute management. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from bulk_update_hosts or create_host, but the resource and action are clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as bulk_update_hosts, create_host, or move_host. The description does not explain whether this is for single-host updates only or how to choose between update modes.
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 mutation ('update', 'modify') but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or whether changes are immediately applied or require activation. With no annotations, this lack of behavioral detail leaves the agent uncertain about consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, with no unnecessary elaboration. The emoji and redundant 'Modify user properties' add slight fluff, but overall it is concise and structured clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks critical context such as expected behavior when updating non-existent users, whether partial updates are allowed, what happens to existing fields, or what the tool returns. No output schema is provided, so the agent cannot anticipate the result of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All five parameters have descriptions in the schema, but they are minimal (e.g., 'Username', 'Email address'). No constraints, formats, relationships, or guidance on which fields are optional versus required beyond the required 'username' are provided. Schema coverage is complete but shallow.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates a user and modifies user properties, which distinguishes it from user creation and deletion. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or clarify the exact scope beyond 'properties'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_user or delete_user. Usage is only implied by the verb 'update' and the resource name, but no conditions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavior such as blocking, polling, timeouts, or side effects. It is unclear if this tool makes any changes or is purely read-only. The description 'wait until...' suggests blocking but lacks explicit detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with an emoji, but it is somewhat redundant: 'Wait for discovery completion' is repeated as 'Wait until service discovery finishes on a host'. This redundancy reduces clarity but the overall length is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context for basic use. However, it lacks details on expected return value, error conditions, or timeout behavior, which could be important for a waiting operation. This is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter 'host_name' is described as 'Host name to wait for discovery completion', which clearly explains its role. Since the schema already provides the type and required status, the description adds some semantic value but is not extensive. This aligns with the baseline for full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to wait until service discovery finishes on a host. The verb 'wait' is specific and the resource is clear. It distinguishes from siblings like start_service_discovery and get_discovery_status, though it doesn't 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sequencing (e.g., 'use after starting discovery') or contrast with get_discovery_status or start_bulk_discovery. The intended usage is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects, but it only mentions creation. It does not mention partial failure behavior, activation requirements, permission needs, or the impact of the optional bake_agent flag.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but redundant: 'Bulk create hosts' and 'Create multiple hosts in a single operation' communicate the same idea. The emoji and repeated phrasing add no real value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should supply more operational context. It omits usage guidance, expected results, and side-effect warnings, leaving the agent to infer important details from the schema and tool name alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with entries and bake_agent both described. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a specific verb ('Create'), resource ('hosts'), and scope ('Bulk'/'multiple hosts in a single operation'), making the tool's purpose clear and distinguishable from single-host creation 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this bulk operation versus the single-host create tool, nor any mention of operational steps like activation after creation. The description only states what the tool does, not how to choose it.
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?
There are no annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral details beyond 'create'. It does not state whether the rule is immediately active, requires activation (e.g., via vibemk_activate_changes), whether it overwrites existing rules, or any side effects. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to inform the agent about the tool's operational impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, one sentence, and front-loads the action ('Create host contact group rule'). It avoids unnecessary verbiage and directly states the primary function. While slightly terse, its brevity is appropriate for a tool whose schema already contains detailed parameter information. The structure is clean and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (nested host_conditions object, optional parameters, and interaction with rulesets), the description alone lacks context about how the rule is stored, whether it is associated with a specific folder, or how conditions are evaluated. However, the schema provides some clarity about host_conditions (e.g., 'empty = all hosts'). The absence of an output schema and annotations leaves gaps, but the combination of description and schema is minimally sufficient for a basic understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, providing baseline semantics for 'folder', 'comment', 'contact_groups', and 'host_conditions'. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already offers. However, the schema descriptions are reasonably clear (e.g., 'Conditions to match hosts (optional, empty = all hosts)'), so the description does not need to add much. The nested structure is explained adequately in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to create a host contact group rule that assigns contact groups to hosts based on conditions. It specifies the exact action (create) and the resource (host contact group rule), and the phrase 'based on conditions' distinguishes it from simpler contact group creation. Among sibling tools, this one is clearly identified by its name and description for assigning contact groups to hosts, unlike vibemk_create_host_hostgroup_rule for host groups or generic rule creation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vibemk_create_rule, vibemk_create_host_hostgroup_rule, or vibemk_update_rule. It does not mention scenarios where this is the preferred choice or that it creates a rule in the Checkmk ruleset system. The only implicit hint is the name, which is insufficient for an agent deciding between similar rule-creation tools.
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 provided; description is minimal and does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether creation triggers activation, whether it overwrites existing users, or permission requirements). The single verb 'Add' gives no behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One-line description is concise and free of filler; it is appropriately short for a simple create operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create tool with no annotations or output schema, the description lacks necessary context such as what happens after creation (activation required?), error handling, or relationships to other objects. Incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions; description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb 'Create' and resource 'user' with 'Add new CheckMK user' - unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like update/delete/get.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus update_user or delete_user, nor any prerequisites (e.g., existing contact groups or roles). Implied only by 'new'.
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 impact. It clearly indicates deletion, but does not mention side effects such as removal of group memberships, cascading effects on hosts/services, or whether confirmation is required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and easy to parse, but repeats the same idea with 'Delete' and 'Remove'. It is not overly verbose and contains no irrelevant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations, the description lacks important context such as prerequisites, effects on associated users, or whether the operation is reversible. It is minimal and leaves the agent to infer behavior from the tool name alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, 'name', is fully documented in the schema with 'Group name to delete', providing clear semantic meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description reinforces the parameter's role.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('contact group'), making the primary purpose unambiguous. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like update_contact_group or create_contact_group, though the phrasing is slightly redundant with 'Delete' and 'Remove'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_contact_group for modifications or get_contact_groups for inspection. The usage context is only implied by the name and description.
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 carry all behavioral detail. It mentions 'options for recursive deletion' but does not explain side effects, such as what happens with non-empty folders when abort_on_nonempty is selected, or whether deletion is permanent or requires activation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and direct, though it redundantly says 'Delete folder - Remove folder'. It is still concise and well-structured without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives enough to understand the operation, but lacks important context such as whether the deletion affects child hosts, whether the action requires activation of changes, or how the delete_mode values behave in practice. It is not incomplete enough to be unusable, but leaves some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (folder path and delete_mode). The tool description does not add any further semantic detail beyond what is in the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete/remove folder) and mentions the key option for recursive deletion. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools such as create_folder, update_folder, and move_folder.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or how to decide between the delete modes. The description is purely declarative and does not offer any contextual or conditional advice.
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?
The description indicates a write/mutation operation (scheduling downtime) but provides no details on side effects, such as whether changes need activation, require permissions, or affect existing downtimes. With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility, and it only partially discloses behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and mostly clear, but it is somewhat redundant: 'Schedule service downtime' and 'Schedule maintenance downtime for specific services' convey overlapping information. A single sentence would have been more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a scheduling operation, the description is sufficient at a high level, but it lacks context about expected outcomes, such as what the response contains or how it interacts with other downtime tools. Given the presence of similar siblings, more context about scope would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, and the tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify relationships or edge cases for parameters like end_time vs duration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (schedule) and the target (service downtime for specific services). It is understandable, but it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like vibemk_schedule_downtime or vibemk_schedule_host_downtime, which could confuse an agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred or when to use schedule_downtime or schedule_host_downtime instead.
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 doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, whether it throws errors on mismatch, or any side effects. The word 'compare' suggests a non-mutating operation but this is not confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and gets to the point in two concise parts. It's efficient but could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose. Front-loads the action 'Compare host states' clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot tell what the comparison result looks like, whether it's a diff, a boolean, or a detailed report. It also doesn't explain any prerequisites like host existence or authentication. Given the complexity of comparing configurations, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%—both parameters have basic descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It could have clarified what format desired_attributes should take (e.g., key-value pairs, specific attribute names) but doesn't.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as comparing host states (current vs desired configuration). The verb 'compare' is specific and distinguishes it from get/update tools in the sibling list, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking drift between current and desired host configuration, but it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to similar tools like get_host_config or validate_host_config. The intent is inferable but not stated directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only states 'create' without mentioning whether changes require activation, whether it overwrites existing hosts, or any other behavioral consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, front-loads the action, and contains no redundant information. The emoji is extra but does not harm clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic purpose and parameters but omits any indication of return values, success/failure behavior, or post-create steps. For a simple creation tool this is acceptable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All four parameters have schema descriptions, so coverage is 100%, but the descriptions are generic ('Folder path', 'Additional host attributes') and add little beyond the parameter names. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create cluster host') and resource ('cluster host with multiple nodes'), distinguishing it from general host creation tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_host' or 'bulk_create_hosts'. The description does not mention cluster-specific use cases or exclusion 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 description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a folder is created but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing folders), required permissions, validation behavior, or error conditions. The description does not contradict annotations since none exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, consisting of two short phrases. It is not verbose and communicates the core purpose efficiently. However, it is so brief that it omits important context, though that is penalized in other dimensions. As a standalone statement, it is well-structured for quick reading.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or any constraints on the folder path or parent relationship. The context of how folder creation fits into the system is not addressed, leaving the agent without enough information to anticipate outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (title, folder, parent), and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states. Baseline is 3 given 100% schema coverage, and the description does not enhance understanding of the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create folder') and the resource ('folder'), and adds specificity with 'Add new folder to the structure'. This distinguishes it from sibling folder operations like get, delete, update, and move, so an agent can easily identify when to use this tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or reference other folder operations. For a tool with many siblings, this is a notable gap.
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?
With no annotations and no description of side effects, the tool provides no insight into whether changes require activation, permissions, or any other operational impact. The fact that it creates something is obvious, but the description does not disclose any additional behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a short title and a one-line elaboration. It is front-loaded with the core action and object, contains no fluff, and is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides enough to understand the basic operation, and all parameters are documented in the schema. However, it lacks any mention of return values, activation requirements, or validation, which could be relevant in a Checkmk context. Overall adequate but not rich in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. However, the descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Tag group title', 'List of tags with id and title') and the tool description adds no extra clarification about how the parameters relate or are formatted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create host tag' and elaborates 'Add new host tag group'. This distinguishes it from other create tools like create_host or create_folder, and from tag operations like update or delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It is implicitly understood that this tool is for creating new host tag groups, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like update_host_tag or get_host_tags. No guidance is provided on preconditions or separation from similar create tools.
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?
There are no annotations, and the description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the basic creation action. It does not mention side effects, such as whether it overwrites existing time periods with the same name, whether it is idempotent, or what happens on failure. This lack of transparency could lead to unexpected behavior for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using only a short phrase with an emoji prefix. It has no redundant or extraneous information, and every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose. The structure is clean and straightforward.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple create operation, and the schema covers all parameters. However, the description lacks important context such as required fields (though schema marks two as required), potential uniqueness constraints on the name, or what the tool returns upon success. This is not a complex tool, but the absence of these details leaves some gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides descriptions for all five parameters (name, alias, exclude, exceptions, active_time_ranges), achieving 100% coverage. According to the rubric, this sets a baseline of 3. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning or context to the parameters, so the score remains at the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to create a new time period. It uses the verb 'Create' and specifies the resource 'time period'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_timeperiod and delete_timeperiod, though it doesn't explicitly name them, the action is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling list includes update and delete operations, the description itself does not mention that this is for creating new time periods only, nor does it contrast with existing time period modification tools. Users must infer usage from the name.
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 implies a non-destructive read ('List', 'Show') but doesn't describe the return format, pagination behavior, whether it returns a summary or full objects, or what happens without a folder filter. Minimal value added beyond the basic intent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence with the core intent front-loaded. The emoji adds no information but the structure is efficient and every part earns its place. Nothing wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A low-complexity read tool with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description is minimal but adequate for the core intent. It doesn't explain what the response contains or how folder filtering affects results, but for a simple listing tool this is a minor gap given the schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (folder, effective_attributes) are already documented in the schema. The description mentions folder filtering, which reinforces but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb and resource: 'List hosts' / 'Show all monitored hosts'. The scope is explicit ('all monitored hosts') and the optional folder filtering is mentioned. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_folder_hosts, get_host_details, or get_host_config, leaving the agent to infer the difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus its many host-related siblings (get_host_details, get_host_status, get_folder_hosts, get_host_config). The usage is implied as a general host listing but no exclusions or alternatives are named. Given the large sibling set, this is a notable gap.
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 does not mention whether the operation is read-only or if it has side effects. Given the nature of listing, it is likely safe, but the lack of explicit transparency for a tool with no annotations means the agent must assume behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point, with no unnecessary fluff. The two phrases are concise, though the second phrase could be seen as slightly redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema specified), the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, the lack of any information about the output format or potential filtering options leaves some gaps in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, which receives a baseline score of 4. There is no schema to clarify, and the description does not need to elaborate on parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('notification rules'), which is specific and distinguishes it from other list tools. The additional phrase 'Show notification configuration' adds slight redundancy but does not detract from the clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While there is no direct sibling for listing notification rules, the description does not mention any specific scenarios or limitations, 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 must convey side effects; 'Get' and 'Show' imply a read-only operation but do not explicitly state that no changes are made or what happens if the ruleset does not exist. This leaves behavioral transparency weak.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with no redundant words or unnecessary detail. It includes an emoji but that does not detract.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with one parameter, the description is minimally sufficient, but it omits any information about the response shape, error behavior, or relationship to sibling ruleset tools. This could leave an agent uncertain about output expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter is described as 'Ruleset name,' matching the schema, but no additional context is given about expected format, uniqueness, or examples. Schema coverage is high, so baseline is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly identifies the action (get/show) and target (specific ruleset configuration), with a single required parameter. However, it does not differentiate from similarly named siblings like show_ruleset or list_rulesets, leaving minor ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to prefer this tool over get_rulesets, show_ruleset, or list_rulesets. The description only states what it does, not when 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?
No annotations are present, and the description does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether it requires special permissions, or what output shape to expect. It only says it lists/shows all service groups.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the action. The emoji and slight redundancy between 'List service groups' and 'Show all configured service groups' are minor, but the overall structure is concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list operation, the description conveys the core purpose and scope ('all configured service groups'). However, it does not describe the output format, pagination, or how this differs from the nearby sibling tools with similar names.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered by default. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description does not need to add parameter-level details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names the specific operation 'List service groups' and clarifies it shows all configured service groups. However, the closely named sibling 'get_service_groups' makes the distinction slightly less clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the similarly named 'get_service_groups' or other service-group tools. It only states what it does, not when it should be chosen.
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?
There are no annotations and the description does not disclose any side effects, such as whether the update is additive, whether missing fields are preserved, or whether the host group must exist. The description only states the action without behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a single clear sentence. It conveys the essential purpose without any redundant or extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple update operation, the description plus schema covers the basic inputs and purpose. However, it lacks context about behavior such as whether the update merges properties or requires all fields, which could be relevant for correct invocation. The absence of an output schema is acceptable for an update operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides descriptions for both parameters ('Group name', 'Display alias'), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update host group') and the resource ('host group'), and the phrase 'Modify host group properties' conveys the general purpose. It distinguishes from create/delete operations by the action verb, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar update tools for other resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_host_group or delete_host_group. The description only states what it does, not the conditions under which to choose it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and 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 burden of explaining that deletion is destructive and likely irreversible. It only says 'Remove host from monitoring' without mentioning permanent deletion, cascading effects, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise and front-loaded; the action and target are immediately clear with no unnecessary wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation with no annotations, the description lacks important context such as irreversibility, prerequisites, or impact on related objects. Simple but incomplete for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter host_name is described in the schema as 'Name of the host,' which fully covers its meaning. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action ('Delete host') and the resource affected ('Remove host from monitoring'), making it distinct from sibling host-management tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_host, move_host, or scheduling downtime. The description simply states the action without usage 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?
The description discloses the direct action of removing a host tag group, but with no annotations, it carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It does not mention that deletion is irreversible, whether host assignments are affected, or what the 'repair' parameter does.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy. It clearly communicates the core purpose in a single phrase.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation, the description lacks important context such as consequences, required permissions, and the meaning of the 'repair' parameter. While the schema covers parameter names, the overall guidance is insufficient for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters have schema descriptions, and coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, and the 'repair' parameter remains ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the object 'host tag group', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like delete_host_group or delete_user_group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_host_tag or get_host_tags. The description does not mention any prerequisites or conditions for deletion.
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?
There are no annotations to indicate read-only behavior, side effects, or rate limits, and the description does not state whether this operation only reads data. Since the full burden falls on the description, the lack of explicit behavioral disclosure is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary fluff. The leading emoji is decorative but does not harm clarity, and the structure is concise and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description conveys the core purpose but does not mention what output the caller should expect (e.g., a list of rulesets, count, or structured details). Since there is no output schema, a bit more context about the return value would make it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter detail to explain. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Find' and the resource 'host grouping rulesets', and explains the purpose as discovering available rulesets for host group and contact group assignment. It is specific enough to distinguish this from generic ruleset operations, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search/list ruleset tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_rulesets, search_rulesets, or list_rulesets. The intended use case is implied by the description but not explicitly contrasted with 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?
The description implies a read-only operation through 'List' and 'Show', but it doesn't explicitly state side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral details. With no annotations to supplement, transparency is limited.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using only a few words to convey the tool's purpose. No unnecessary information or verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is functionally adequate. Missing details like output format or default behavior, but not critical for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter host_name is described as 'Filter by host name', which is clear and matches the schema. The description adds no extra detail but the schema already provides adequate semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists downtimes and shows scheduled downtimes, identifying the resource and action. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like list_downtimes or get_active_downtimes, so it's slightly ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other downtime-related tools (e.g., get_active_downtimes, schedule_downtime). The description lacks any explicit or implicit direction for choosing among alternatives.
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 implies a read-only listing operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention any authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency and 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words or complexity. The emoji and dash add visual structure without detracting from clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides the basic function but lacks important context: there is no output schema to indicate what fields will be returned, and no information about how this tool relates to other downtime tools (e.g., 'vibemk_get_downtimes', 'vibemk_delete_downtime'). The description is adequate for a simple listing but leaves the agent without full operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides clear descriptions for all three parameters: host_name filter, active_only boolean with default, and service_description filter. The tool description's mention of 'filtering options' aligns with these. The parameter meanings are well-explained directly in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'scheduled downtimes', making the primary purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly-named sibling tool 'vibemk_get_downtimes', which could lead to confusion about which to use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'filtering options' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'vibemk_get_downtimes' or 'vibemk_get_active_downtimes'. There is no explanation of use cases, prerequisites, or relationships to other downtime-related 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 alone carries the transparency burden. It states that it modifies a stored password, but does not disclose side effects, whether fields are partially or fully replaced, or what happens when the identifier is invalid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, with no unnecessary filler. The slight redundancy of 'Update' and 'Modify' is minor, but otherwise it is well-structured for quick consumption.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the schema covers all parameters, but the description lacks operational context such as what fields are mutable, whether the operation is partial or full replacement, and what the expected outcome or error behavior is. It is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides descriptions for all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, but the parameter meanings are reasonably clear from the schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update password' / 'Modify stored password') and the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_password, delete_password, and get_passwords. No ambiguity about what this tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_password or delete_password. The description does not mention prerequisites, partial-update semantics, or when an update is appropriate.
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, and the description does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is idempotent, whether it overwrites existing configuration, or whether changes require activation. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and to the point, with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured for a simple update operation, though it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal and does not mention that only provided fields are updated, that the 'name' parameter is required to identify the target, or what the tool returns. It is adequate for a simple operation but leaves some contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides descriptions for all five parameters, so coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add deeper meaning beyond what the schema already gives; the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'time period', and explicitly says 'Modify time period configuration'. This distinguishes it from related tools like create_timeperiod, delete_timeperiod, and get_timeperiods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for modifying an existing time period but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., when you need to update versus create or delete). No conditions 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It states the mutation ('create') but does not mention important operational details such as duplicate handling, partial failure behavior, validation, or whether changes require activation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and free of filler. It conveys the essential purpose in two short phrases and does not waste words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple bulk-create operation with a low-complexity schema. However, the absence of any output schema or return-value description leaves the agent guessing about success/failure reporting and response format, so completeness is only moderate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides basic descriptions for `entries`, `name`, and `alias`, and the description adds no further semantic detail. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Create'), a resource ('service groups'), and a distinguishing scope ('multiple at once'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling single-create tool `vibemk_create_service_group`.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies batch usage ('Create multiple service groups at once') but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling `vibemk_create_service_group` or other bulk operations. No prerequisites or trade-offs 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?
With no annotations present, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the return format looks like, or any potential side effects or limitations. The 'check' wording implies read-only but is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The emoji adds visual clarity, the verb-object structure is direct, and the distinguishing clause is necessary for differentiation. Every word contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description gives the core purpose and a key differentiator, but it lacks details about the output structure or how the returned data distinguishes host-level from service-level downtimes. Without an output schema, some additional context would be helpful for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter host_name is already fully described in the input schema ('Host name to check downtime status for'), and the tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond that. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Check host downtime status') and the resource ('host'), and adds a distinguishing detail about separating host-level from service-level downtimes, which clarifies its unique purpose among similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_downtimes, list_downtimes, or get_active_downtimes. It only hints at the distinguishing output feature but provides no direct usage guidance 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the action is a 'test' of connectivity and API access, which implies a non-mutating diagnostic, but it does not explicitly mention side effects, required permissions, or whether any state changes occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, using a single short sentence with an emoji prefix. It conveys the core purpose without any fluff or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple diagnostic tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does, though it could mention what kind of result or confirmation is returned to fully set expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially complete. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none to describe.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: testing server connectivity and API access for CheckMK. It names a specific resource (CheckMK connection) and a specific action (test), which distinguishes it from generic debug tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling debug tools like debug_url_detection or debug_api_endpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It only states what it does, without mentioning appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives such as debug_url_detection or get_checkmk_version.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and resource but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects might occur, or what the output format is. For a debug/check tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is concise and efficient, though it could include more contextual detail without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description should at least indicate what the tool returns or how to interpret results. It only says 'check permissions' without stating the output format or any expected behavior, leaving the agent without enough information to fully anticipate the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). Since there is nothing to document, the baseline of 4 applies; the description does not need to add parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Check') and a specific resource ('automation user permissions for API access'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling debug tools like vibemk_debug_checkmk_connection and vibemk_debug_url_detection by focusing on permissions, making its 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many other debug tools available. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or the specific scenarios that warrant checking permissions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that parent filtering is optional and that the tool shows folder structure, but it does not state what the return format is, whether the structure is recursive, whether it is paginated, or what 'optional parent filtering' means in terms of default behavior (root level). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a thin disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence with an emoji, front-loading the verb and resource, and packing the optional-filtering constraint into the same clause. Zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves the return value unspecified. Since there is no output schema to fall back on, the description could reasonably state what is returned (folder list, hierarchy depth), which it does not. Adequate but with a noticeable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the parent parameter already has a clear description ('Parent folder path to filter'). The tool description mentions parent filtering, but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('folders'), and notes optional parent filtering. It clearly distinguishes from sibling folder tools like create_folder, delete_folder, and update_folder, which are all mutation operations rather than read-only listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is a sibling get_folder_hosts that could be conflated with folder listing, and no mention of when to use this vs. drilling into a folder's hosts. The description implies a read-only structure-browsing use case but provides no explicit 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 on side effects or read-only behavior, the description carries the full burden. 'List/Show all' implies a read operation but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it describe return behavior or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and mostly focused, but 'List host groups' and 'Show all host groups' are slightly redundant. Still, it contains no unnecessary fluff beyond the emoji and the duplicated idea.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a trivial parameter-less list tool, the description is minimally sufficient, stating the resource and action. However, it does not mention the return format or any limits/filtering, so an agent gets only the basic intent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so there is no input schema to document. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'host groups', and with the tool name it is unambiguous. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_service_groups or create_host_group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_service_groups or other host-related list operations. It does not mention that it is a read-only listing or when it would be preferred.
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 clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get', 'Extract') with no side effects, which is transparent given the absence of annotations. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' but the verb implies it clearly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single line with no redundant text. It fully conveys the essence without extra words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple read operation but does not specify the output format or any edge cases. Given there is no output schema, it could be more explicit about the returned data structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides full descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), and the tool description adds minimal additional semantic value. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose (get host metrics, extract performance data) and specifies the resource (host metrics) distinguishing it from service-level metrics. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools for comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like service metrics or metric search. It lacks any conditional context or decision 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?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden for disclosing side effects. It only states that it forces immediate execution, but it does not mention any potential impacts (e.g., overriding scheduled checks, resource usage) or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It contains no redundant or irrelevant information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal but sufficient for a simple tool. It does not explain return values or error conditions, but there is no output schema to complete. However, it lacks context on how the check is actually performed or what the expected outcome is beyond 'immediate execution'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides basic descriptions for each parameter ('Host name', 'Type: host or service', 'Service (for service checks)'), but the description adds no additional nuance. The check_type parameter is only vaguely described, and the relationship between host and service is not fully clarified. However, since the schema covers all parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Force immediate check execution' clearly states the tool's purpose with an actionable verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from other tools like scheduling downtimes or acknowledging problems, so an agent can quickly understand what this tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisite conditions, such as whether the host or service must be in a certain state, or when a reschedule is preferred over other actions like discovery.
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 only states 'Modify an existing service group's alias'. It does not mention permissions, side effects, idempotency, or behavior when the group does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no redundant information. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple update operation, the description is adequate but lacks context on error handling, return values, or whether other fields may be affected. Given the simplicity, it does not feel incomplete, but it does not provide extra guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover both parameters clearly ('Service group name to update' and 'New alias/description'). The description adds the word 'New' to alias but does not significantly extend beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Update service group' and specifically 'Modify an existing service group's alias'. It distinguishes the tool from create, delete, and get operations on service groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_update_service_groups or create_service_group. It implies the target must exist but offers no exclusions or comparisons.
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 disclosing side effects. It simply states the action 'Add comment' without mentioning whether it is a mutation, requires special permissions, is reversible, or has any impact on monitoring state. The description lacks behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant information. It is well-structured and front-loads the core purpose immediately. There is no fluff or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple comment-adding operation, the description is mostly complete. It indicates the target (host or service) and the action. However, it does not clarify the relationship between 'comment_type' and 'service_description' (e.g., that service_description is required only when comment_type is 'service'), nor does it mention whether a comment is persistent by default. These details would make the description fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All five parameters have descriptions in the schema, giving 100% coverage. However, the descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Persistent comment' does not explain what persistent means, and 'comment_type' only says 'Type: host or service' without enumerating allowed values). The description adds little beyond the schema's basic labels, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Add comment to host or service'. The verb 'Add' and the resource 'comment' are specific, and the target (host or service) is explicitly mentioned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like acknowledging problems or scheduling downtimes, nor does it differentiate scenarios where adding a comment is preferred over other actions. The usage context is left completely to the reader.
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 burden of explaining side effects. It only says 'Add new contact group' and does not mention permissions, duplicate handling, or whether activation of Checkmk changes is required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief and front-loaded, but 'Create contact group' and 'Add new contact group' are largely redundant. It contains no unnecessary detail, though the redundancy slightly reduces efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create operation with a small schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits useful context such as name uniqueness, whether members are required, or whether created groups need activation to take effect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters ('Group name', 'Display alias', 'Group members'), so schema coverage is high. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Create contact group' and 'Add new contact group', identifying the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling update/delete/retrieve contact group tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when creating a new contact group, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as updating or deleting. Usage is inferred from the verb rather than explicitly guided.
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?
The word 'analyze' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state whether it modifies any state or requires special permissions. With no annotations, this implicit clue is the only 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a single sentence with a clear action and object. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of parameters and an output schema, the description provides enough context for a user to understand the tool's basic function. It lacks details about return format or specific analysis, but these are not essential for such a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The schema coverage is effectively complete, warranting the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states an action ('Analyze') and a resource ('available CheckMK API endpoints and their structure'), making its purpose identifiable. However, it does not specify what kind of analysis is performed or what output is expected, 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling debug tools (e.g., debug_url_detection, debug_checkmk_connection). The description gives no context for selecting it over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'Shows' results, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention side effects, permissions, or the absence of mutations. This lack of explicit behavioral disclosure is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, consisting of a single clear sentence that directly states the tool's function. No unnecessary words or redundant information are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It clearly communicates the tool's purpose and output, and no additional context is necessary for a user to understand what the tool does.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, making the input schema empty. According to the rubric, zero parameters yield a baseline score of 4, and the description appropriately adds no parameter-related information since there is nothing to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: showing all tested URL patterns and results. It uses the specific verb 'Show' and identifies the resource ('tested URL patterns and results'). While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling debug tools, its focus on URL detection is sufficiently specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this debug tool would be preferred over other debug tools like vibemk_debug_api_endpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It simply states 'Remove a service group from CheckMK' without mentioning potential cascading effects, reversibility, or confirmation requirements. This lacks transparency for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. It is well-structured, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It could mention that deletion is permanent or that it affects only the service group, but these are not critical for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'name' is described as 'Service group name to delete', which aligns with the schema and adds slight context. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description does not significantly enhance beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (service group) in CheckMK, distinguishing it from other service group operations like create or update. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update service group, bulk delete). It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or situations where 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, and the description only says 'List services'. It does not disclose side effects, rate limits, or return behavior. Since the description carries the full burden without annotations, this minimal information about safety and expected behavior is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence that conveys the essential purpose and key parameter constraint without any fluff. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with one optional filter, the description provides enough context to know what the tool does. It does not describe the output format, but given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema, this is not a critical gap. The tool name further clarifies the intent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes host_name as 'Filter by host name'. The description adds the word 'optional', clarifying that the parameter is not required. This is a small addition; the core semantics are already covered by the schema, so the description adds only marginal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List) and the resource (services), and mentions the optional host filtering. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_service_status or get_host_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where other list or service-related tools would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The words 'Get' and 'Show' strongly imply a non-destructive, read-only operation, and no annotations contradict this. However, the description does not explicitly state that no changes are made or that it is safe to call freely.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using one short sentence plus an emoji. It conveys the tool's purpose without redundant wording or unnecessary structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it could be more complete by indicating whether the result is a summary or detailed list, and by mentioning that it is a precursor to activating changes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so parameter-level explanation is unnecessary. The description adds no parameter details, but none are required; the empty schema already fully covers this aspect.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation: retrieving pending/uncommitted configuration changes. It distinguishes this as a read-oriented listing tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools like activation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus related tools, nor any hint that it should be called before activating changes. The description implies a read-only listing but does not clarify the intended 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It states the intended outcome but does not disclose side effects such as activation requirements, duplicate handling, or whether existing rules are overwritten.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with a clear action and purpose. The emoji is decorative but does not harm clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives enough high-level context for a straightforward call, but the nested host_conditions object is under-specified and no output schema or error behavior is mentioned. Agents may need additional examples or details to construct valid conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description. The description adds high-level context but does not significantly expand on the schema-provided parameter meanings, especially for nested condition structures.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create host group rule') and the purpose ('Assign hosts to host groups based on conditions'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_host_group and create_rule.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when assigning hosts to host groups via a rule, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives, when-not-to-use, or prerequisites. No sibling tool is referenced for comparison.
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. The description only says 'remove monitoring rule' without noting that deletion is permanent, irreversible, or may require an activation step.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise, just two short phrases. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Provides the essential purpose and parameter, but lacks context about side effects, required permissions, or relationship to activation. Given the minimal nature and lack of annotations, it is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, rule_id, is described in the schema as 'Rule ID to delete', which is clear. The description adds no extra detail but schema coverage is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action: delete a rule. Distinguishes from sibling rules tools like create_rule, update_rule, and move_rule.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool or any preconditions. Does not mention whether deletion requires activation or affects other monitoring objects.
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?
The description implies a read-only operation, but with no annotations and no explicit statement about side effects or permissions, some ambiguity remains about what 'system details' entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only informational call, the description is largely sufficient. The phrase 'system details' is slightly vague but does not prevent correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the baseline applies; no additional parameter explanation is needed or possible.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the Checkmk version and system details, which is a specific read-only purpose. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like connection debuggers, though 'system details' is somewhat broad.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any indication of when it is appropriate or inappropriate to call it. The description only states what it does.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states a read-only action ('List passwords') but does not explicitly mention side effects, security implications, or return format. The behavior is fairly obvious for a list operation, but lacks explicit transparency about data sensitivity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using only two short phrases: 'List passwords - Show stored passwords'. Every word serves a purpose, and it is well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple list operation, but it does not specify what information is returned (e.g., password names, full passwords, metadata). Without an output schema, this ambiguity leaves the agent uncertain about the exact response structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially complete. There is no parameter information to add, and the description provides none, making this a neutral baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists passwords with the verb 'List' and the resource 'passwords'. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools that create, update, or delete passwords.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like create_password, update_password, or delete_password, nor any conditions for use. The purpose is implicit but not explicitly contrasted with other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of disclosing side effects. It only implies a mutation (moving) but does not mention activation changes, reversibility, or other behavioral impacts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, immediately stating the verb and object. The emoji adds a slight visual cue but does not detract. Every word serves to communicate the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple move operation, the description is sufficient to understand what it does, but it lacks context about post-action requirements (e.g., activation) or return behavior. No output schema exists, so some context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already covers both parameters with basic descriptions. The tool description adds no further meaning, such as format expectations for folder paths or host names. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (move host) and the resource (host) with the destination (different folder). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like move_folder or update_host.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The use case is implied by the description (move a host to a different folder) but no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this over alternatives like move_folder or update_host.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only mentions suppressing alerts; it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or whether changes require activation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence and to the point, though 'Schedule host downtime' and 'Schedule maintenance downtime' are slightly redundant. Still, it is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complete parameter descriptions in the schema and no output schema, the tool description is sufficient for an agent to understand the basic call. It could be slightly richer on behavioral consequences, but the schema fills most gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already explained including defaults and natural-language formats. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly identifies the action (schedule), resource (host), and purpose (maintenance downtime to suppress alerts). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like schedule_service_downtime and schedule_downtime.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the name and purpose, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like schedule_downtime or schedule_service_downtime, and no 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Start bulk discovery' without mentioning whether the operation is synchronous/asynchronous, side effects (e.g., scheduling background jobs), or how results are returned. This is insufficient for a state-changing action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, leading with the action and resource, then clarifying the scope. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the schema covers input parameters, the description lacks context about the output or expected result of starting a bulk discovery. Given the presence of sibling tools like get_bulk_discovery_status, it is likely asynchronous, but this is not mentioned, leaving the agent without guidance on follow-up steps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides detailed descriptions for all parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what is already in the schema, so it does not enhance parameter understanding. Baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start') and the resource ('bulk discovery') with the specific scope of 'multiple hosts simultaneously,' distinguishing it from single-host discovery siblings like discover_services and start_service_discovery.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for multiple hosts simultaneously, but does not explicitly contrast with single-host discovery or mention when to use this over other discovery tools. No explicit alternatives are named, so guidance is only implicit.
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?
The description implies a read-only availability check but does not explicitly state side effects or lack thereof. With no annotations, the description partially carries the transparency burden but leaves room for ambiguity about whether any modifications or background processes are triggered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and free of unnecessary detail, conveying the purpose in a single short phrase with a clarifying subtitle.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the broad purpose and expected behavior, though it could clarify what 'all endpoints' encompasses or what output the user should expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool tests all API endpoints and performs a comprehensive availability check. It is distinguishable from related debugging tools, though 'all API endpoints' is somewhat broad.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like debug_api_endpoints or test_direct_url. The description does not indicate whether this should be used for initial connectivity checks, troubleshooting, or routine validation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that the role's alias or permissions can be modified, but does not mention side effects, partial update semantics, idempotency, or auth requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant information or fluff. The emoji does not detract from clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides enough to understand the basic operation, but it does not mention what the tool returns, whether it is idempotent, or how partial updates to alias/permissions behave. Given the absence of an output schema, some additional context could be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'existing' and 'modify', but the schema covers parameter purpose adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an existing user role's alias or permissions. It uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('user role'), and the distinction from create/delete/show role tools is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates the tool is for modifying an existing role, but it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over related tools or mention prerequisites such as the role needing to exist. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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 word 'Delete' implies destruction, but there are no annotations to cover safety, and the description does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, irreversible, or whether it affects associated rules or configurations. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the responsibility and does not fully disclose side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a single sentence that captures the action and scope. No unnecessary words or filler. The title-like prefix 'Bulk delete service groups' is redundant but harmless, and overall structure is lean.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple bulk deletion operation, the description covers the essential information: what is being deleted, the plural nature, and the parameter. It does not describe error handling, partial success behavior, or return values, but given the simplicity and lack of an output schema, it is adequately complete for an agent to understand the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'entries' is described as 'List of service group names to delete', which directly explains its purpose and matches the schema's array-of-strings type. This provides clear meaning beyond the raw type, but there is no additional detail about constraints, formatting, or existence requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the target resource ('service groups'), and the inclusion of 'multiple' and 'Bulk' in the name and description differentiates it from the singular 'delete_service_group' sibling. The purpose is immediately obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says 'Delete multiple service groups at once', which implies it is meant for batch deletion, but it does not explicitly contrast with using the singular 'delete_service_group' or mention when one would prefer this bulk variant. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description only indicates that the tool creates a role by cloning. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, failure modes, or whether the operation is idempotent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose and method, with no redundant or extraneous wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description and schema together give enough context for a basic invocation: which role to clone and what ID to assign. It does not specify output behavior, but for a simple create operation this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides clear descriptions for all three parameters, including an example for base_role_id. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the score stays at the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states a specific action: create a user role by cloning an existing role. It distinguishes this tool from list/show/update/delete role siblings by emphasizing the clone-and-create behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies the tool is for creating a new role from an existing one, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other role-related tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternative workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'shows progress', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive or describe the nature of the returned data (e.g., fields like status, progress percentage). It also doesn't mention polling behavior or potential delays. The description is not contradictory 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the action. The emoji adds visual emphasis without harming clarity. However, the two parts ('Get bulk discovery status' and 'Show progress of a bulk discovery job') are nearly redundant, with the second only slightly refining the first. It's efficient but slightly repetitive, so not a perfect 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description gives enough to know its basic purpose but leaves out what the response structure looks like and any confirmation that it is read-only. For a status-check tool, this is adequate but not fully complete—an agent might need to know if it returns a single progress value or a more detailed job object.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'job_id' with description 'Bulk discovery job ID'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already gives, such as how to obtain the job_id or its expected format. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('bulk discovery status'), and adds 'Show progress of a bulk discovery job' which specifies what the status represents. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vibemk_get_discovery_status (likely for single discovery) and vibemk_get_discovery_background_job by the explicit 'bulk' qualifier. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it is for bulk discovery jobs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like vibemk_get_discovery_status or vibemk_wait_for_discovery. There is no direct comparison or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer from naming conventions. It provides no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., obtaining a job_id from vibemk_start_bulk_discovery).
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; description implies read-only via 'list/show' but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or lack thereof.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very brief, but redundant phrasing 'List contact groups - Show contact groups' slightly wastes space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Minimal description does not mention return format, filtering, or sorting; adequate for a simple list but lacks detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, so description does not need to explain them; baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action (list) and resource (contact groups), and distinguishes from create/update/delete siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implicitly for listing contact groups, but no explicit contrast with create/update/delete or when to choose this over others.
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 burden. It indicates a read-only operation through 'Get' and 'Show', and discloses the behavior of including inherited values, but does not describe side effects, return format, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no redundant words or filler. It states the purpose in a single clear sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation on a single parameter, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's purpose. It does not detail the output structure, but that is not critical for invoking a host attribute retrieval.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the single parameter host_name as 'Name of the host', so coverage is high. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves effective host attributes, including inherited values, which distinguishes it from plain host configuration retrieval. The verb 'Get' and resource 'host attributes' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for viewing effective host attributes with inherited values, but does not explicitly contrast it with alternative host-related tools such as get_host_config or get_host_details. Guidance is present but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention authentication/authorization needs, or describe pagination or other runtime behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and directly states the tool's purpose in two short phrases. No unnecessary words or redundant details are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could be slightly stronger by stating the output nature or scope, but nothing essential is missing for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively complete. With no parameters to document, the description adds no parameter-level meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List service groups' and 'Show all service groups'. It clearly distinguishes from create/update/delete service group tools and the singular get_service_group sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Show all service groups' implies use for retrieving the full list, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related alternatives like get_service_group or bulk operations. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention any permissions, rate limits, or potential errors. It is clear enough for a basic list operation but lacks explicit safety guarantees.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and to the point, using one line to convey the action and scope. The emoji adds visual cue without redundancy, and there is no unnecessary filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool returns (a list of user roles) and the optional parameter is fully described in the schema. No additional context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides a description for the single parameter `show_builtin` ('Include built-in roles (admin, user, guest) in the list'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add extra meaning, but the schema description is sufficient, warranting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('user roles'), and specifies the scope ('all available' and 'built-in and custom'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `vibemk_show_user_role` which likely targets a single role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `vibemk_show_user_role` or `vibemk_get_users`. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this listing is preferred.
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 responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Test', without indicating side effects, return values, or whether it is read-only. The behavior is opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with the purpose front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary detail and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. It lacks details on what 'test' entails (e.g., HTTP method, expected response), but given the simplicity and sibling context, it is not severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter with a clear description and example. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool tests a specific API URL manually, using a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('direct URL'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'test_all_endpoints' and debug tools by specifying 'a specific URL'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for manually testing a single URL, contrasting with broader tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference.
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?
There are no annotations to carry safety or side-effect information, so the description bears full responsibility. It states that deletion is limited to custom roles, but does not disclose that deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether roles in use are protected, or what errors might occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and to the point, using one short sentence to convey both the action and the key limitation. No filler or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It includes the important built-in-role restriction, though it stops short of describing return values or failure conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, role_id, is fully documented in the schema as 'ID of the custom role to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the schema, but because schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete user role') and the target resource ('custom user role'), and explicitly distinguishes it from built-in roles. This differentiates it from sibling tools like update_user_role or list_user_roles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear usage constraint: only custom user roles can be deleted, not built-in roles. It does not explicitly point to alternatives for listing or creating roles, but the custom-vs-built-in distinction is enough to guide appropriate use.
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 burden. 'List' implies read-only behavior, but it does not mention error cases, permissions, folder existence, or whether any side effects occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: a clear verb and object in a single sentence with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one required parameter, the description covers the essential purpose and input. It does not describe the return format or edge cases, but given the simplicity and lack of an output schema, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'folder' is described as 'Folder path', which matches the tool description. However, no additional format details, examples, or defaults are provided beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('all hosts in a specific folder'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_folders or get_checkmk_hosts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when hosts inside a particular folder are needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, though the verb 'list' implies it. It provides no information about potential errors 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, well-structured, and directly to the point. It uses clear language and avoids unnecessary detail, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what the tool does and what it shows, which is enough for a simple list operation. It could possibly mention the output format but that is not strictly necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters in the input schema, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and there is nothing missing in this regard.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('host tags'), and clarifies it shows available host tag groups. It distinguishes from other tag-related sibling tools (create/update/delete) by focusing on listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for read-only listing while other tools handle modifications, nor does it reference any specific sibling tools.
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 burden. It accurately describes a write operation but does not disclose potential side effects, failure conditions (e.g., name conflicts), or permission requirements. The behavior is unsurprising for a create operation, but transparency is limited.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using two short phrases that convey the purpose without redundancy. No unnecessary words or details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the operation and the lack of an output schema, the description is complete for an agent to understand what the tool does. No additional context about return values or complex behavior is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with simple descriptions ('Group name', 'Display alias'), and the description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema fully describes the parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create host group' / 'Add new host group') and the resource ('host group'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like update_host_group, delete_host_group, and get_host_groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (use to create a host group) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives such as bulk creation or updating an existing group. The name and context make the purpose clear, but there is no explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of indicating side effects. 'List' and 'Show' clearly signal a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no changes are made or mention permissions or other behavioral caveats.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: 'List users' immediately states the action and object, followed by a short clarification. There is no redundant or irrelevant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives the essential scope but does not describe the returned user data, response shape, pagination, or any limiting conditions. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about what 'all users' includes would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and the schema is empty, so parameter-level semantics are not applicable. The description still adds useful scope by specifying 'all CheckMK users', which is sufficient for a parameterless read operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('users'), scoped to 'all CheckMK users'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from user mutation tools and other listing tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like create_user, update_user, or get_contact_groups. It gives no direct guidance on when this tool is preferable or how it differs from related listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior; 'show' and 'display' indicate a read-only operation, which is transparent, though error behavior is not addressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and directly conveys the purpose without unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with a single well-described parameter and no output schema, the description is complete and sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter's schema description, but the schema description for role_id is clear and sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (show/display) and the resource (user role details), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list, create, update, and delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_user_roles; it only implies specificity via 'a specific user role' without naming the alternative or condition.
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?
Does not disclose any side effects such as whether the deletion is reversible, requires activation, or has restrictions; with no annotations, the description bears the burden and it is somewhat lacking.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One clear sentence with an icon, no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Sufficient for a simple delete operation; does not mention return values or failure modes, but no output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter downtime_id is already described in the schema as the ID to delete and where to get it; the tool description adds no further semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it deletes/cancels a downtime by ID, distinguishing from schedule and list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implicitly indicates usage: you need an existing downtime ID, likely from list/downtime tools; does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but is understandable.
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 explicitly states the destructive effect: 'Remove CheckMK user'. Since no annotations are provided, this clarity is valuable, though it does not mention irreversibility 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with no superfluous information. It uses a clear structure: action + resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with a single parameter, the description provides sufficient context. It does not mention edge cases like non-existent users or activation steps, but these are not strictly necessary for this tool's basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter 'username' is already self-explanatory in the schema ('Username to delete'), and the description adds no additional semantic context or format details. It meets the baseline but provides no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete user') and the resource ('CheckMK user'), making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like create_user or update_user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for removing a user but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., using update_user to disable a user). It also lacks any prerequisites or consequences, though this is less critical given the simple scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context about the filtering criteria (active and suppressing alerts) but does not mention return format, pagination, or any side effects. For a read-only get operation, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose with a visual marker. It contains no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It clearly defines what constitutes 'active' and the alert suppression aspect, which is the key differentiator among sibling downtime tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (host_name), and the schema already describes it as 'Optional: Filter active downtimes for specific host'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('active downtimes'), and a clear scope ('only currently active downtimes that are suppressing alerts'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like vibemk_get_downtimes and vibemk_list_downtimes by the 'active' and 'suppressing alerts' qualifiers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need currently active downtimes that are suppressing alerts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer the use case without confusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get example' strongly implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no changes are made to Checkmk or that it only returns illustrative JSON.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with no filler or redundant content. Both phrases add value: one names the operation and the other specifies the output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity, empty schema, and no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates that the tool returns example JSON structures for host grouping rules. It could add a bit more detail about the shape or scope of the examples, but none is essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: example JSON structures for host grouping rules. This distinguishes it from actual rule retrieval tools like get_ruleset or find_host_grouping_rulesets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implies use when example JSON structures are needed, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as get_rulesets or find_host_grouping_rulesets, nor does it mention that this is only for reference before creating rules.
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 says 'List' and 'Show', which strongly implies a read-only operation with no modifications. There are no annotations to rely on, but the wording is sufficiently transparent for a simple listing tool. It does not explicitly state side-effect freedom, but the operation type makes this clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a short phrase and one clarifying sentence. It contains no filler or redundant information and is easily scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument listing tool, the description is complete enough to understand the operation. It does not describe output format or return details, but this is not critical for such a simple, well-named tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The input schema is empty and fully covered by the absence of parameters. The baseline for zero parameters is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists time periods and shows all configured ones. This is a specific verb-object pairing, and the name reinforces the read-only intent. It is easily distinguished from sibling create/update/delete timeperiod tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys that the tool is for listing all time periods, so usage is implied. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.
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

vibeMK MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

[![vibeMK MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chexma/vibeMK/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chexma/vibeMK)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![vibeMK MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chexma/vibeMK/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chexma/vibeMK)

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/chexma/vibeMK'

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