clawmem-mcp-server
OfficialServer Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.6
- Disambiguation4/5
Tools are grouped into clear categories (collaboration, issue, memory) with distinct purposes. However, 'collaboration_admin_invoke' is a catch-all for rare operations and could be confused with specific collaboration tools, and there is slight overlap between 'issue_create' and 'memory_store' though descriptions clarify.
Naming Consistency5/5All tools follow a consistent pattern: category_subcategory_action with underscores, no camelCase or mixed styles. Verbs like list, get, create, update, etc., are used uniformly across categories.
Tool Count2/5With 39 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold considered too many. While the server covers multiple subdomains (collaboration, issues, memory), the number feels heavy and could overwhelm agents without clear need for such granularity.
Completeness4/5The tool surface covers CRUD for issues and memories, plus extensive collaboration features (teams, orgs, repos, invitations). Minor gaps: no tool to delete memories (only mark as closed) and no explicit issue label management (handled via update). Overall, the domain is well-covered.
Average 3.4/5 across 39 of 39 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 7 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It discloses that the tool marks a memory as closed but omits critical details: whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or has side effects. The agent cannot infer safety or impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but incomplete. While it avoids verbosity, it lacks necessary details such as parameter meaning or behavioral notes. It could be more informative without adding wordiness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description should suffice but does not. It fails to explain the concept of 'closed' in ClawMem, the effect of forgetting, or what happens to the memory afterwards. This inadequacy leaves the agent with incomplete context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for the sole parameter 'memoryId'. It does not clarify what a valid memory ID is or how to obtain one, leaving the parameter entirely undocumented beyond its type and constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Mark a ClawMem memory as closed' clearly states a specific verb and resource. It indicates a state change, which differentiates it from query tools. However, 'closed' is ambiguous and not explicitly contrasted with sibling tools like memory_update, slightly reducing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_update or memory_review. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, making it difficult for an agent to decide correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only says 'list' with filters. Does not mention pagination (limit parameter), authentication, read-only nature, or any side effects. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, very concise. However, given 10 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too brief and could be more informative without being overly long. Balance is acceptable but not optimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is very incomplete. It fails to explain return values, pagination, filtering behavior, or required permissions. Leaves major gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 10 parameters with 0% coverage; description mentions only 'label and assignment filters' (labels, assignee). Other critical params (state, sort, limit, repo) are unexplained. Adds little value beyond parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists issues in a repo with filters (verb+resource+scope). The word 'generic' is slightly vague but overall purpose is clear. It distinguishes from other issue tools like issue_get or issue_create.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., issue_get for single issue, or issue_comments_list for comments). Missing context about prerequisites or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It only states 'read-only,' but omits details like pagination, rate limits, required permissions, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, avoiding verbosity, but it is too brief to be effective. It sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list operation without output schema, the description must cover sorting, pagination, potential large results, and error cases. It provides none of this, leaving the agent unprepared.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of parameters (e.g., what 'org' or 'teamSlug' represent). This forces the agent to guess their meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (members of an organization team), and distinguishes from sibling tools like collaboration_teams (list teams) and collaboration_team (get a single team).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context on prerequisites (e.g., membership, permissions), and no when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full weight. Only states 'fetch', implying read-only, but lacks details on error handling, authentication, rate limits, or behavior when issue is missing. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no fluff. Very concise, but could be slightly more informative without losing brevity. Front-loads the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema parameter descriptions, the description is severely lacking. It omits return value structure, error scenarios, permissions, and default behavior for the optional repo parameter. Completely inadequate for a fetch tool with this level of support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'issue number' and 'target repo' but doesn't explain that repo is optional, what format the repo should be, or the meaning of the integer parameter. Adds little beyond the schema's property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states verb 'fetch', resource 'one generic issue', and identifiers 'issue number' and 'target repo'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like issue_list. However, 'generic issue' is slightly vague, and the repo parameter is not required, which is ambiguous with 'from a target repo'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as issue_list. No context about prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely 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 provided, so description must carry full burden. 'Atomic durable' hints at transactional and persistent storage, but fails to disclose error handling, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., overwriting), or whether the operation is synchronous. Insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence. However, brevity sacrifices necessary detail; it could be restructured to front-load the action and then list parameter context. No wasted words, but not optimally informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits return value, error cases, and storage behavior (e.g., uniqueness constraints). Agents cannot reliably use this tool without guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds no parameter explanations. Properties like 'title', 'detail', 'kind', and 'topics' are not described; 'kind' especially is ambiguous. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Store' and resource 'memory' with qualifiers 'atomic durable' hinting at transactional and persistent behavior. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., memory_forget, memory_recall) by implying a write operation, but does not explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_recall or memory_update. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states 'Write operation' and mentions the confirmation requirement, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether updates are additive, permissions overwritten), required permissions, or consequences for existing access. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences front-loading the purpose and a key usage condition. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters with 0% schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It fails to explain critical parameters (e.g., the repo pattern, permission options) and does not describe return behavior or errors. The description is adequate only for a very knowledgeable user.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description does not elaborate on any parameter (e.g., format of 'repo', meaning of 'permission' values). It only indirectly references 'confirmed=true'. The description adds virtually no value beyond the schema's property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Grant or update a team's access to a repo') and implies the resource (team-repo). It is specific about what the tool does but does not differentiate from sibling tools like collaboration_repo_collaborator_set or collaboration_team_repo_remove, though the focus on team is implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a usage condition ('requires confirmed=true') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. collaboration_team_repo_remove for removing access). No explicit when-not or alternatives are 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?
No annotations provided, and the description only states it 'Add a comment' without disclosing behavioral details like error handling, visibility, or prerequisites. The tool is a write operation but lacks transparency on side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and a short description, the tool lacks context on expected behaviors like response format, limitations, or prerequisites. Additional info on comment formatting or error scenarios would be needed for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter meanings. For example, replyToCommentId is not described, leaving agents to infer its purpose from the name alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Add a comment to an issue' and its purpose for posting task output, status, or handoff notes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like issue_comments_list (list comments) or issue_create (create issues).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like issue_comments_list for reading comments, nor when not to use it. The description does not compare with other issue tools or provide context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'list issue comments' without explaining pagination, rate limits, default ordering, or the format of parameters like 'since'. The behavioral impact of parameters (e.g., threaded) 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.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose but omits necessary details about parameters and behavior, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover filtering criteria, pagination, or return format, which are essential for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any of the 7 parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it fails to add meaning beyond the parameter names. For example, 'since' is not described as a date filter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists issue comments and provides specific use cases (inspect task output, latest handoff, completion notes). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like issue_comment_add by focusing on reading rather than writing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (inspecting outputs, handoffs, notes) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states fetching one memory and the parameter types, omitting details about parameter precedence, side effects, permissions, or error handling. The status parameter is not mentioned at all.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (12 words) and front-loaded. However, it may be overly brief, missing necessary detail for full clarity. It earns its place but could benefit from slight expansion.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It only conveys the basic action and parameter types, leaving out behavior, error cases, and response format. Incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (33%), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by linking memoryId to an issue number and ref to a memory ref string, but it does not explain the status parameter or how the parameters relate. Partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches one ClawMem memory and accepts an issue number or memory ref string. However, it does not clarify how the two parameters (memoryId and ref) interact when both are provided, creating slight ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use memory_get versus its siblings, such as memory_list, memory_recall, or other memory tools. The description lacks context for the agent to decide between tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description lacks details on side effects, idempotency, permissions, or error conditions; only states 'update in place' which is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (8 words) but at the expense of necessary detail; not well front-loaded with critical information for selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct invocation; e.g., partial update behavior, allowed field values not explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are entirely missing (0% coverage) and the description does not explain what each parameter does, leaving the agent to infer from names only.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description specifies verb 'Update', resource 'existing ClawMem memory', and scope 'in place', clearly differentiating from siblings like memory_create or memory_forget.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no mention of other memory tools that could be used 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?
Minimal behavioral info: implies read-only operation but no details on pagination, sorting, or safety profile. No annotations to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with verb and resource, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks mention of return structure, pagination, default limit, or ordering. No output schema to fill gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description echoes schema's filter parameters but adds no new meaning; does not explain aliases like status mapping or limit behavior. Schema coverage is 60%, so description does not compensate significantly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'List' and resource 'memories', scope 'current default repo', and mentions filter options, distinguishing it from siblings like memory_get or memory_recall.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternative tools (e.g., memory_recall), no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, effects on state, error conditions). It only implies a read operation but explicitly states search.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with key information. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks details on output, error handling, what 'active' means, and scope limitation. Without annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient for a 2-param tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds no meaning beyond property names. It does not explain the query format, limit behavior, or how results are returned.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states action 'search' and resource 'active ClawMem memories' with scope 'current default repo', distinguishing it from other memory tools like memory_get or memory_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like memory_get or memory_list. The description does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes it's a write operation and requires confirmed=true, but it contradicts the schema where confirmed is optional. It does not explain side effects, permissions, or what happens on success/failure, leaving agents uninformed about critical behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, with two sentences covering the core action. However, it may be too terse given the need for additional detail; a bit more structure could improve clarity without adding much length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It omits prerequisites, permissions, expected return values, and how it differs from closely related tools like collaboration_team_members or collaboration_team_membership_remove.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description should add meaning to parameters. It does not describe the purpose of org, teamSlug, username, role, or confirmed beyond the tool name. The role enum values are implied but not explained, and the confirmed parameter's role is ambiguous (required in description but optional in schema).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Add a user to an organization team or adjust their team role (member or maintainer).' It provides a specific verb ('Add'/'adjust'), resource ('team membership'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like collaboration_team_membership_remove.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description labels the operation as a 'Write operation' which implies it should be used for mutations, but it does not explicitly contrast with read-only siblings like collaboration_team_members or removal tools. It mentions a requirement ('confirmed=true') but lacks guidance on when not to use this tool 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 are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the tool summarizes access but does not state whether it is read-only, required permissions, or side effects. The only behavioral detail is defaulting to the plugin default repo, which 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences pack essential information without fluff. Front-loaded with the main purpose, then details on what it summarizes, and a note on default behavior. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should hint at return structure. It says 'summarizes' but does not describe the format or key fields. Also missing edge cases (e.g., user not found). However, for a diagnostic tool with clear purpose and simple parameters, it is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers both parameters fully (100% coverage). The description adds value for the repo parameter by noting it defaults to the plugin default repo, but for username it merely restates the schema description. Overall minor addition over schema, earning a baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool diagnoses how a user is granted access to a repo, summarizing multiple access types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like collaboration_repo_collaborators and collaboration_repo_invitations by focusing on the overall access picture.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention situations where other tools (e.g., collaboration_repo_collaborators) 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?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It notes it's a write operation and mentions a requirement, but fails to disclose what happens on conflict, required caller permissions, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete; it lacks prerequisite info, return details, and error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description only adds meaning for 'confirmed', leaving repo, username, and permission unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Grant (or update) a user's direct access to a repo.' It distinguishes from siblings like remove and inspect by focusing on setting access.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a context hint ('Write operation: requires confirmed=true') but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or specify when to use this tool instead of others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'Write operation,' indicating mutation, but omits key behavioral traits such as reversibility, permission requirements, error handling, or side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences provide the essential purpose and a key usage condition. No extraneous words; the description is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too terse for a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It fails to explain return values, error states, permissions, or relationships with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It only explains the 'confirmed' parameter (requires true), leaving org, teamSlug, and repo without additional context. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no patterns or constraints are described beyond the schema definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Remove a team's access to a repo,' specifying the action and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like collaboration_team_repo_set (which presumably adds access).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'requires confirmed=true,' providing a necessary condition for the operation, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like collaboration_repo_collaborator_remove (which removes a user). No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
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, description partially carries the burden. It states the tool is rarely-used, dispatches by action, and requires confirmed=true for writes. Lacks details on error handling, side effects, or return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences and a list, front-loaded with key info. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers action list and confirmed flag, but lacks description of return values (which vary by action) and error handling. Given the complexity (15 actions), more contextual info would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (33%), but description adds value by explaining the confirmed parameter's role and listing all actions with their parameter details in the schema description. This goes beyond the bare enum and properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it is a meta-tool for rarely-used admin collaboration operations, listing 15 specific actions. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being a collapsed meta-tool for admin ops, though some overlap exists.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternative sibling tools (e.g., team_create vs. collaboration_team). Only mentions that write actions require confirmed=true, but does not provide context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions '(read-only)', indicating no destructive side effects, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but remains minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 5 words, including a parenthetical note. It is extremely concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource, without any redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a simple list operation with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on return format (e.g., team names, objects), potential pagination, and error scenarios. With no output schema, more context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter 'org' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'org' represents (e.g., name, ID) or provide any additional meaning beyond the parameter name. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List teams in an organization (read-only)', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like collaboration_team (individual team) and collaboration_team_members (members of a team).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing all teams in an organization, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like collaboration_team or when not to use it. It provides no context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a mutation action ('Create') but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, rate limits, or response format. The description is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using a single sentence to convey the core purpose. While it could be slightly more structured to include additional details, it is not verbose and front-loads the key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameters, return values, or usage nuances, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 14% (only 'repo' has a description). The tool's description adds no parameter-level information, leaving the meaning of most parameters ambiguous. A higher baseline is needed when coverage is low.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (create), resource (issue in a target repo), and distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'outside the structured memory schema.' It is specific and non-tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when to use the tool (queueing work, coordination, shared tracking) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. It implies usage but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions defaults but does not reveal what happens on duplicate names, or any side effects like autoInit implications. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, 22 words, front-loads purpose. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks detail on behavior of optional parameters and potential outcomes. Incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% (2 of 6 params described in schema). Description adds context for 'name', 'org', and implies 'private' default, but does not clarify 'description', 'autoInit', or 'setDefault' beyond schema. Baseline 3 adjusted upward slightly for the org clarification.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: 'Create a new memory repository.' Distinct from sibling tools like memory_repo_set_default and memory_repos.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context on default privacy and owner, and explains org parameter usage. However, no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds 'read-only' hint, but fails to disclose pagination, rate limits, error handling for nonexistent teams, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence front-loading key information. No extraneous words; every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is minimal. Lacks details on return format, error cases, or behavior for missing teams. Not complete for a tool with 2 required parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. Description does not explain what org and teamSlug represent or any constraints beyond schema types. No additional meaning added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'repos' with scope 'an organization team can access' and clarifies it's read-only. Distinguishes from sibling tools like collaboration_teams (list teams) and collaboration_repo_access_inspect (inspect access).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage to list team repos, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use. Does not mention alternative tools for modifying team repos (e.g., collaboration_team_repo_set) or other scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description provides some behavioral context by labeling it a 'Write operation' and stating the confirmed parameter must be true. However, it omits details such as failure modes, side effects, permission requirements, or idempotency, leaving gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using one sentence and a fragment to convey the core action and a key requirement. Every word contributes value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and only two parameters without schema descriptions, the description is too brief to fully inform an agent. It does not explain what the tool returns, error behavior, or postconditions, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions the 'confirmed' parameter without explaining its meaning or the role of 'invitationId'. The statement 'requires confirmed=true' adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter's existence.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Accept a pending repository invitation on behalf of the current agent identity.' It includes a verb and specific resource, and the mention of 'Write operation' differentiates it from read-only tools. The name itself distinguishes it from sibling tools like decline or org invitations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes that confirmed=true is required, implying a precondition for use, but it does not explicitly guide when to select this tool versus alternatives like org invitation accept or decline. The usage context is implied by the name but not elaborated.
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 bears the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation and that the 'confirmed' parameter must be true. However, it does not mention potential destructive side effects, reversibility, permissions needed, or what happens to the user's roles or repos upon removal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences), with no unnecessary words. It clearly separates the core action from a critical condition. While it could benefit from structured formatting (e.g., bullet points for conditions), it does not waste space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the function's return value, error conditions, or behavior when 'confirmed' is false. An agent would need additional knowledge to use this tool safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, placing high burden on the description. The description only adds meaning for the 'confirmed' parameter ('requires confirmed=true'). The required parameters 'org', 'teamSlug', and 'username' are not explained beyond their names, leaving the agent without context on expected values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove a user from an organization team'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like collaboration_team_membership_set (which adds/sets membership) and collaboration_repo_collaborator_remove (which removes repo collaborators).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a key prerequisite: 'requires confirmed=true', indicating when the tool is valid to use. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools (e.g., when to use this vs. other membership removal options) or mention contexts where it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It identifies the operation as a write and notes the confirmed flag, but it does not discuss permissions, side effects, or post-decline state. More detail is needed for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the action and includes necessary context efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (declining an invitation), and the description covers the core action. However, lacking an output schema and annotations, it does not specify return values or confirm the outcome, leaving some completeness gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions the confirmed parameter contextually ('requires confirmed=true') and omits any description of the required invitationId parameter or the optional confirmed parameter's meaning beyond the flag requirement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Decline', the resource 'pending organization invitation', and the scope 'on behalf of the current agent identity'. It effectively distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'collaboration_user_org_invitation_accept'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes that it is a write operation requiring confirmed=true, providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write operation and the required confirmed flag, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether an email is sent, if the invitation is pending, or idempotency). Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences: first states the core purpose, second adds a key constraint and a differentiator from the console UI. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, but the description does not hint at the return value (e.g., invitation object) or error conditions. For a write operation with six parameters, missing details on response and side effects make it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%. The description adds value for teamIds ('optionally pre-assigning them to one or more teams') and confirmed ('requires confirmed=true'). Other parameters (role, expiresInDays) lack additional context beyond the schema. Partially compensates for coverage gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Invite a user to an organization' and highlights the optional pre-assignment to teams, which distinguishes it from the Console UI limitation. This provides a specific verb+resource and differentiates from siblings like acceptance tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes that the Console UI cannot bind team_ids, indicating when this tool is preferable. It also specifies 'requires confirmed=true' as a prerequisite for the write operation. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives among 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?
With no annotations, the description adds that it's a write operation and requires confirmation. However, it lacks details on success response, error conditions, or side effects beyond the obvious destructive nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, clear sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action, the second adds key usage context. Perfectly sized for the information provided.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple removal tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It does not cover return value, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., user must be a collaborator).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It only adds meaning to the 'confirmed' parameter (requires true). The 'repo' and 'username' parameters are not explained beyond their schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Remove a user's direct access to a repo' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like collaboration_repo_collaborator_set (sets permissions) and collaboration_repo_collaborators (lists).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It specifies it's a write operation requiring confirmed=true, giving clear context for when to use. It implicitly contrasts with read tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives like invitations.
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 states 'read-only' and the default repo behavior, which is helpful. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention authentication, error cases, or response format, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sentences for behavior and defaults), but it is efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential functionality. However, it omits details about return structure and potential limitations, which are not critical but would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only adds a default value hint for the repo parameter. It does not explain the format or meaning of the repo parameter (e.g., name, ID, full path). This is insufficient for an agent to know how to populate it correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'direct collaborators of a repo'. It adds that it is read-only and defaults to the plugin default repo, distinguishing it from sibling tools like collaboration_repo_collaborator_remove or collaboration_repo_collaborator_set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing collaborators and notes its read-only nature, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like collaboration_repo_access_inspect or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context from sibling names helps, but the description lacks direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description adds 'read-only' as a behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication, or response behavior, which the description should address given no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Purpose and key info (read-only) are front-loaded. Perfectly concise for a simple fetch tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple tool: states what it does and how to identify the team. Lacks description of return format or possible errors, which would be helpful given no output schema. Not incomplete but could be better.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters beyond mentioning 'slug'. It does not clarify that 'teamSlug' is the slug or describe 'org', leaving agents to infer from context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action 'Fetch', resource 'one team', scope 'in an organization', and identifier 'by slug'. Explicitly mentions 'read-only', distinguishing it from sibling tools like collaboration_teams (list) or modification tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage when fetching a specific team by slug. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not conditions, but context from sibling tool names makes the differentiation clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it is a write operation and requires confirmed=true, adding behavioral info beyond no annotations. However, it does not detail side effects, such as state changes or error conditions, which limits transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the purpose and a key constraint but lacks prerequisites (e.g., need a pending invitation), result details, or guidance on using sibling tools like collaboration_user_org_invitations to get the invitationId. This limits completeness for a two-parameter tool with no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only mentions that confirmed must be true but does not clarify invitationId's meaning or how to obtain it, leaving half the parameters unaddressed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Accept a pending organization invitation on behalf of the current agent identity.' This specifies the verb (accept), resource (organization invitation), and scope (current agent), distinguishing it from sibling tools like decline or repo invitations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used when the agent wants to accept an invitation by noting it is a write operation and requiring confirmed=true. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives like decline tools, which are available as siblings.
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 full behavioral burden. It correctly indicates read-only behavior. Yet it lacks details on authorization, pagination, or what happens with no invitations. For a simple read operation, this is minimal but acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and scope, making it quick to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should ideally hint at the return format (e.g., list of invitations with status). It covers purpose and default parameter but misses what data to expect. For a simple tool, it is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage for the 'repo' parameter. The description adds value by noting 'Defaults to the plugin default repo', clarifying optionality and default behavior. However, it does not specify the expected format (e.g., repo name or ID).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List pending invitations issued by a repo' which gives a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like collaboration_user_repo_invitations (user's own invitations) and collaboration_repo_collaborators (current collaborators).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'read-only' and defaults to the plugin default repo, implying safe usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like collaboration_user_repo_invitations or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation and lists returned fields, but does not disclose potential side effects or access limitations beyond 'current agent can access'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then details. No unnecessary words. Effectively communicates the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains what it does and what it returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (100% coverage), so the description needs no param details. It adds value by explaining the output fields, which the schema does not provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'memory repositories', and specifies the returned fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_repo_create and memory_repo_set_default.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_list or memory_recall. The description does not provide context on when not to use it or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states read-only, which is positive for a tool with no annotations. However, it does not disclose details like pagination, rate limits, or behavior when no invitations exist, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, conveying the essential information effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could optionally hint at the structure of the return list (e.g., repository names, invitation status), but the core purpose is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying scope (current agent identity), which is not in the schema. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists repository invitations pending for the current agent identity and explicitly marks it as read-only, distinguishing it from sibling tools like collaboration_repo_invitations or accept/decline tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for viewing one's own pending invitations before acting on them, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like collaboration_repo_invitations (which might list all invitations) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that labels and assignees are full replacements, a key behavioral trait. No annotations exist, so description carries the burden; it does not mention permissions or rate limits but is adequate for a straightforward update.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences with front-loaded purpose. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so return values are not explained. For 9 parameters, the description only partially covers semantics. Missing information on error conditions or idempotency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description only partially explains parameter semantics. It covers labels and assignees behavior but omits stateReason, locked, and repo. More detail is needed for such a large parameter set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update a generic issue in place' and lists the fields that can be updated, distinguishing it from sibling tools like issue_create or issue_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies usage for modifying an existing issue and explicitly notes that labels and assignees are full replacements. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use alternatives like comment addition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that invoking the tool clears the review nudge, a side effect. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only and non-destructive, which would be helpful given the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage and side-effect details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, and a behavioral detail. It could be more complete by describing the expected output format, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'focus', with an enum and description. The description adds only that it defaults to 'both', which is also implied by the schema. Thus, the description does not add significant meaning beyond 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a ClawMem self-review checklist with memory-track and skill-track questions. It uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('checklist'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_list and memory_recall which handle storage rather than review.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: every ~8-10 user turns, after non-trivial tasks, or when a <clawmem-review-nudge> appears. It also mentions that the nudge is cleared upon invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description notes it is a write operation requiring 'confirmed=true', but lacks details on side effects or outcomes. Some behavioral context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences front-loaded with the primary action, followed by the write operation requirement. No unnecessary words; efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool and clear sibling names, the description is complete. No output schema but return is likely straightforward.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'confirmed=true' but does not explain the 'invitationId' parameter. It adds some value but insufficient to fully compensate for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Decline a pending repository invitation') and specifies the agent identity ('on behalf of the current agent identity'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like accept or list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for rejecting a pending invitation but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. However, sibling names provide context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the setting persists across sessions and is scoped to the plugin install (writes to state.json). This goes beyond basic 'set default' by revealing side effects and scope, though it does not mention authorization or overwrite behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two concise sentences: the first states the core action, the second provides critical persistence context. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description does not explain return values or success/failure signals, leaving a gap. However, for a simple setter, the provided information is functional. Missing details about what the tool returns after setting.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, with a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'the plugin's default memory repo'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_repo_create (creates a new repo) and memory_repos (lists repos) by specifying the unique action of setting a default.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when one wants to establish a persistent default repo for the plugin. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tools, but the context suggests no special prerequisites. The purpose is clear enough without further guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Notes the tool is read-only, which is the key behavioral trait. No annotations provided, so description carries burden; however, for a simple list tool, this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise, front-loaded with action and scope; no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully informs the agent about what the tool does and its read-only nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no further parameter information, but baseline for zero-param tools is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly specifies the action ('list'), resource ('organization invitations'), and scope ('pending for the current agent identity'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like collaboration_user_org_invitation_accept.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage to view pending invitations for oneself, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives or when not to 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 full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond its action, such as authentication requirements, URL persistence, or security implications of the token parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys what the tool does and when to use it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool (no output schema, no nested objects, 2 optional parameters), the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, usage context, and implicitly the return value (a URL).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are already clear ('Optional search query to pre-fill in the console.' and 'Include the agent token in the URL for one-click login.'). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns a URL to a web console for browsing, searching, and managing memories. It distinguishes from sibling memory tools that perform direct operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use when the user asks where to view or manage memories in a browser.' This provides clear guidance on when to invoke this tool over alternatives.
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 discloses the output format ('Returns {kinds, topics}') and implies a read-only operation via 'List'. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so adequately for a simple list tool. However, it could explicitly state that no changes are made.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long: the first clearly states the action and output, the second gives usage guidance. No redundant information, every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, output, and usage context. It does not explain what 'kinds' and 'topics' mean, but that is likely domain knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the output structure, but parameter semantics are not applicable. Since there are no parameters, the description cannot add meaning beyond the schema, but it still provides useful context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action ('List the schema of active memory labels') and the scope ('in the current default repo'), and specifies the return structure ('Returns {kinds, topics}'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like memory_list or memory_get by focusing on label schemas rather than memory entries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this before inventing a new kind or topic, to reuse existing labels.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the use case is well-defined. No alternative tools are needed as no sibling tool provides the same functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/clawmem-ai/clawmem-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server