mcp-luz
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.2.0
- Disambiguation4/5
The tools are mostly grouped by clear domains (Playwright, Context7, Nexus, Docker) and each action targets a distinct resource or operation. A few pairs like browser_type vs browser_fill_form, browser_evaluate vs browser_run_code_unsafe, and browser_close vs browser_tabs could cause minor hesitation, but the descriptions are explicit enough to resolve the ambiguity.
Naming Consistency3/5The tool names mix conventions: some use namespaced prefixes (playwright__browser_*, context7__*, sequential-thinking__*), while others are unnamespaced Portuguese verbs (detectar_stack_atual, gerenciar_docker_monorepo) or have a bare domain prefix (nexus_search, nexus_get_project). All names are snake_case and generally readable, but the inconsistent prefix style and English/Portuguese mixing keep it from being cohesive.
Tool Count2/5With 33 tools spanning browser automation, knowledge management, documentation lookup, Docker orchestration, and reasoning, this is a heavy and multi-purpose surface. Each sub-suite is individually reasonable, but the aggregate feels bloated for a single MCP server without a clearly defined unified scope.
Completeness4/5Core workflows are well covered: browser automation includes navigation, input, snapshots, network inspection, and tab management; Context7 has resolve+query; Docker has up/down/ps/logs; Nexus has search/get/list/create. The main gaps are write-side Nexus operations like updating or deleting drafts and a few browser edge-case actions, but these are workable gaps rather than dead ends.
Average 3.4/5 across 33 of 33 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is destructive, but the description adds no context beyond that. It fails to mention that accepting or dismissing a dialog consumes it, that promptText is only relevant for prompt dialogs, or that side effects depend on the dialog type.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It provides no structural information and merely repeats the tool's name and title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that handles browser dialogs, the description omits crucial behavioral context: when the tool should be called, what happens to the dialog, and how accept/promptText interact. The absence of an output schema makes this gap more significant.
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%, with both 'accept' and 'promptText' already clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Handle a dialog' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title. It does not specify what handling entails, such as accepting, dismissing, or providing text for a prompt dialog.
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 this tool, such as when a dialog is open and awaiting interaction. It also does not mention prerequisites or contrast with any alternative approach.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description directly contradicts the annotations: it says 'Close the page' while the annotation title says 'Close browser' and the tool name is browser_close. Because of this contradiction, per rubric the behavioral transparency score is 1.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no filler words. However, the single phrase is underspecified and the page/browser inconsistency prevents it from being a model of effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive action, the description omits side effects like losing unsaved state or closing all tabs, despite annotations carrying the destructive hint. The ambiguity between page and browser also leaves the tool's actual scope unclear, making the definition incomplete for correct use.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the input. With no parameters to explain, the description need not add anything, and the baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a verb and resource ('Close the page'), so it is not a tautology, but it conflicts with the tool name (playwright__browser_close) and the annotation title ('Close browser'). This page-vs-browser mismatch leaves the actual target ambiguous and potentially misleading.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling browser tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or context (e.g., whether it should be used before navigating away or when done with a session).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says the tool 'consults current documentation.' It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, what kind of results are returned, whether there are limits, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and resource, and the resolved-libraryId qualifier is placed at the end without bloating the structure. It sacrifices some completeness, but it is not verbose or poorly organized.
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 simple two-parameter tool this is only marginally adequate. The description does not explain what 'query' does, does not clarify the relationship with context7__resolve_library_id beyond an implied prerequisite, and does not describe return behavior or expected output. Given no output schema and no annotations, key context is missing.
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 adds meaning for libraryId by calling it 'resolved.' The query parameter receives no explanation at all, and the overall parameter semantics remain almost entirely reliant on the bare 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 states a specific verb ('Consulta') and resource ('documentação atual no Context7'), and it references the prerequisite of a resolved libraryId, which separates it from the sibling context7__resolve_library_id. It is clear enough that an agent will know this tool is for querying docs rather than resolving library IDs.
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 phrase 'usando um libraryId resolvido' implies that a library ID must first be resolved, which points toward the sibling tool context7__resolve_library_id. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool, when not to use it, or how it relates to alternatives, leaving usage mostly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is just a restatement of the tool's name and provides no additional behavioral traits. Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description does not add warnings about possible navigation, page changes, or the need for element permission via the 'element' parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is efficient but very minimal, which is why it does not reach the top score.
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 that this is a browser click that can trigger destructive or open-world side effects, the description is too bare to be contextually complete. It omits when to use it, what may follow, and how the element is specified from the page snapshot, despite the schema covering parameter formats.
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%, so the parameter descriptions already document target, button, modifiers, doubleClick, and element. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Perform click on a web page.' It clearly identifies the tool's action, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling interaction tools like hover or press_key.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use this tool over alternatives such as playwright__browser_hover, playwright__browser_type, or playwright__browser_press_key, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the bar is lowered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the title and schema, such as navigation scoping, default level filtering, or output shape.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though borderline under-specified; the word 'all' could mislead given the level filtering defined in the schema.
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 schema and annotations cover parameters and safety, but the description omits the output format and page-specific context an agent needs to consume results. For a simple read-only tool this is minimally adequate with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for level, all, and filename. The description itself contributes no parameter semantics, but the schema carries the burden, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and object: 'Returns all console messages'. It is unambiguous about the resource, though it does not distinguish it from sibling browser tools or clarify page vs session scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like network_requests or snapshot could overlap in debugging scenarios, but the description offers no selection criteria 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?
Annotations already indicate the operation is mutating (readOnlyHint false) and potentially destructive (destructiveHint true). The description adds no further behavioral context, such as mouse down/move/up mechanics, visibility requirements, or potential page-state effects. There is no contradiction with the annotations, but the description contributes almost nothing beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler and front-loads the action ('Perform drag and drop'). It is appropriately concise for a simple tool definition, even though other dimensions carry the cost of its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has two required targets, no output schema, and destructive potential, yet the description says nothing about what the tool returns, how the drop is executed, or whether both elements must be present/visible. The schema and annotations cover parameters and mutability, but the overall operational context is 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 100%, so the baseline is 3 because the schema already documents all four parameters. The description's 'between two elements' loosely aligns with startTarget and endTarget but adds no meaningful detail about startElement/endElement or selector behavior.
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 names a concrete action, 'drag and drop', and identifies the two elements involved via 'between two elements'. It is clear enough for an agent to understand the basic operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool playwright__browser_drop, which is a minor ambiguity given the similar names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided: there is no statement about when to use drag-and-drop, no prerequisites, and no comparison with alternatives such as browser_drop, browser_click, or browser_hover. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself. It does not disclose that this drives a file chooser, that paths are absolute local paths, or that omitting paths cancels the chooser. No contradiction with annotations, but the description contributes little beyond them.
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 short sentence with no filler or redundant explanation, making it efficient and easy to parse. It is not a 5 because it is barely more informative than the title, but it is appropriately compact.
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 one-parameter browser tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the minimal description is mostly adequate. However, it leaves the file-chooser interaction and triggering context implicit, so the agent may not fully understand when or how the upload operation is invoked.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the single 'paths' parameter, including absolute paths, multiple-file support, and cancellation when omitted. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific action verb ('Upload') and a clear resource ('one or multiple files'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like browser_drop or browser_type. It loses a point because it largely restates the tool name/title without adding a scope or boundary.
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, nor does it mention the conditions under which uploading applies. The only hint about cancellation behavior lives in the schema, not in the description, so the agent receives no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-read-only operation, but the description adds no behavioral details beyond that—no mention of side effects, submission, permission prompts, or what happens to existing field values. With destructiveHint=true, the agent would benefit from at least a note on the tool's effect on the page.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the verb and object efficiently, though it may be too sparse to fully stand alone.
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 a complex mutation with nested parameter objects, but the schema and annotations cover parameter semantics and safety profile reasonably well. Missing is any guidance on when to use the tool or what the result looks like, which leaves the definition adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the 'fields' parameter (target, name, type, value, element) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics but doesn't need to; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Fill') and resource ('multiple form fields'), making the tool's core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as playwright__browser_type or playwright__browser_select_option, though the plural 'form fields' hints at batch form-filling rather than single-field typing or option selection.
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 about when to choose this tool over its siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a page snapshot to obtain field targets) or of contexts where filling multiple fields is preferred to repeated browser_type calls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the action. It does not explain that hovering can trigger JavaScript events or change page state, so it adds no value beyond what annotations already communicate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though so sparse that it borders on under-specification.
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 browser automation tool with no output schema and a destructive hint, the description lacks important context: return/error behavior, side effects, permission requirements, and when the target must come from a snapshot. An agent receives too little situational guidance beyond the bare action.
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 both parameters are already described clearly: target as an element reference/selector and element as a human-readable description for permission. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Hover') and resource ('element on page'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_drag by the verb, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use hover versus click, drag, or other interactions. The description implies usage only through the verb itself and does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does add that the tool automatically ascends to the monorepo root, which is a useful non-obvious behavior. However, it does not disclose side effects of 'up'/'down' or the output/failure behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One compact sentence, verb-first, with the key automatic-root-descending behavior included. It loses a point only because the parenthetical command list is inaccurate and could mislead despite the overall tight structure.
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 one-parameter tool this is close to adequate, and the schema covers the only parameter. Missing items are the output produced by the command execution and any side effects/prerequisites, especially with no output schema to fill that gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already gives full parameter semantics via an enum with a description, so baseline is 3. The description adds no value and actually introduces a conflict by mentioning 'ps' while the valid enum is 'status', which could lead an agent to send an invalid value.
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 uses a specific verb ('Executa') and a clear resource ('comandos docker-compose'), and adds the monorepo-root behavior. However, it lists 'ps' where the schema accepts 'status', so the boundary is slightly muddied and the description is not fully aligned.
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?
There is no statement about when to prefer this tool or what alternatives exist. The command list implies common docker-compose operations, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the search is read-only, whether it requires authentication, what side effects may occur, or how versioning affects results. The word 'versionados' adds some context but not enough for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the verb, scope, and target content types efficiently, and every word earns its place.
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 low-complexity and the schema covers both parameters well, but there is no output schema and no behavioral or usage-guidance detail. The 'limit' parameter description implies snippets are returned, which partially compensates, but the description alone leaves gaps around return format, safety, and tool selection context.
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 both parameters come with meaningful descriptions ('query' and 'limit'). The tool description itself does not add much beyond mapping 'termo' to the query parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Busca' (search), the resource ('termo'), and the scope ('ideias, projetos, decisões e propostas versionados no Nexus'). It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like nexus_get_project or nexus_list_recent, so it slightly misses the top tier for sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description is purely declarative and gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as nexus_get_project or nexus_list_recent. It neither mentions exclusions nor prerequisites, leaving usage decisions entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal readOnly=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as the possibility of triggering keyboard shortcuts, submitting forms, or navigating pages. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not disclose anything beyond what annotations already provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. For a one-parameter tool this is an appropriately concise definition.
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 plus schema is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. However, it lacks usage context distinguishing it from sibling input tools and does not mention potential side effects, leaving a modest completeness gap.
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 only parameter `key` is already well documented with examples like `ArrowLeft` and `a`. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Press') and resource ('a key on the keyboard'), clearly identifying this as a keyboard-input tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like playwright__browser_type or playwright__browser_click, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as playwright__browser_type, playwright__browser_fill_form, or playwright__browser_click. No context is given about the kinds of interactions that require a key press rather than text input or mouse actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action. It does not disclose side effects such as submit behavior, triggering key handlers, or potential page changes. It is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction, but it adds no extra 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, direct sentence with no filler or redundant detail. The core action and target are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning.
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 text-entry tool, the schema and annotations cover parameter semantics and safety profile. However, the description lacks context about when to prefer this over fill_form or press_key, and it doesn't mention potential side effects like form submission. It is minimally viable but has clear 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?
The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions, including target, text, slowly, submit, and element. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the schema carries the burden and the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Type') and a clear resource ('text into editable element'), so an agent can tell this is a text-entry tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings like fill_form or press_key, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as browser_fill_form, browser_press_key, or browser_click. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or scenario notes.
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 annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is externally available. The description adds no further behavioral detail beyond the obvious fact that JavaScript is executed; it does not describe side effects, page mutation risks, or save behavior, but it also does not contradict the 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 a single well-structured, front-loaded sentence that uses every word for meaning. There is no padding or redundant restating of the schema.
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?
This is a powerful arbitrary-code-execution tool with no output schema and no examples or return format guidance. It lacks information about how results are returned, what side effects to expect, and how element targeting should be used, making the definition incomplete for the caller.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage and clearly documents target, element, filename, and function. The top-level description adds little parameter nuance, but the schema already carries the burden, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action and resource: it evaluates a JavaScript expression on the page or a target element. It is concise and unambiguous, but it does not differentiate itself from the similarly capable sibling playwright__browser_run_code_unsafe, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when this tool should be preferred over alternatives such as playwright__browser_run_code_unsafe, nor are prerequisites or exclusions stated. The only usage signal is the tool name and one-line purpose, which is not enough to route an agent reliably.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and is destructive, and the description aligns with that. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as side effects on the current page, whether the viewport or outer window is resized, or how this affects subsequent interactions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence and is front-loaded with the action, which is concise for a simple tool. The '[playwright]' prefix is mildly redundant but does not meaningfully harm clarity.
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?
This is a low-complexity tool with full schema coverage and annotations, so the one-line description covers the core action. It is still incomplete in context: the agent is not told units, whether the change is permanent, or what side effects to expect from the destructive hint.
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%, with both width and height already documented as dimensions of the browser window. The description adds no additional meaning such as units, valid ranges, or constraints, so the parameter semantics rest almost entirely on the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Resize') and a clear resource ('the browser window'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. This action is distinct from sibling tools like navigate, click, or screenshot, even though no sibling comparison is stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 or when to prefer an alternative. It doesn't mention responsive testing, viewport sizing, or any exclusion conditions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as not read-only, open-world, and destructive, so the safety profile is externally provided. The description itself adds no behavioral detail beyond the basic action, such as page-load waiting, current-page state changes, or side effects, but it is not misleading and does not contradict the 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 a single compact phrase with the key verb and object front-loaded. Every token is functional, and there is no excessive prose or redundant elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one required parameter and existing annotations, the invocation requirements are straightforward. However, the description omits context about what happens after navigation, whether the tool waits for the page to load, and how it relates to navigate_back, so an agent must infer this behavior from the tool name and siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% because the only parameter, 'url', is documented in the schema. The description merely repeats 'URL' and does not add meaning such as accepted URI formats, http/https requirements, or whether relative and absolute URLs are supported, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Navigate') and a clear resource ('a URL'), so the core operation is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling playwright__browser_navigate_back or other navigation-related tools, so it misses the differentiation that would earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over playwright__browser_navigate_back, playwright__browser_wait_for, or other siblings. The only usage signal is implied by the name and the phrase 'Navigate to a URL', with no exclusions or prerequisites 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?
Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only and destructive, so the mutation risk is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not mention that selecting an option can trigger change events, alter page state, or invalidate dependent elements. With destructiveHint=true, the description carries responsibility for disclosing side effects and fails to do so.
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. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, and the '[playwright]' prefix is minor clutter but not a structural deficiency.
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 selection tool, the description plus fully covered schema is minimally viable. Still, it lacks key context about how values are matched to options, whether multi-select applies broadly, and what side effects may occur. The annotations cover the safety profile, but the description is not fully self-sufficient on its own.
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%, so the schema already documents target, values, and element adequately. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, particularly leaving ambiguous whether 'values' refers to option value attributes, labels, or indexes. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter burden.
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 names a specific operation on a specific resource ('Select an option in a dropdown'), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like click, type, or fill_form. It slightly oversimplifies by saying 'an option' when the schema supports multiple values, but the intent is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool—when the agent needs to pick an option from a dropdown—but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or when it is not appropriate. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons with 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it waits for text to appear/disappear or time, but it does not disclose timeout behavior, whether conditions are mutually exclusive, or what happens if the timeout is exceeded. With annotations covering the safe-read nature, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
One concise sentence with no filler. The action and three modes are front-loaded in a clear structure, though the phrase 'or a specified time to pass' is slightly awkward and could be clearer about which parameter it maps to.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives the core purpose. However, it omits important behavioral details like default timeouts, error handling on timeout, and whether the tool returns after the condition is met or after a fixed delay. An agent could call it correctly but might not know how to handle non-success cases.
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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description mirrors this by listing text, textGone, and time, but does not clarify whether parameters are mutually exclusive or how combinations behave. It adds no significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'wait for' and the resources involved: text appearing, text disappearing, or a time delay. It specifies the exact three behaviors the tool supports, which distinguishes it from all sibling browser tools like find, click, or navigate.
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 this tool versus alternatives, such as after navigation, before assertions, or instead of polling. The description only states the functionality, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool resolves a library to an ID; it does not mention network behavior, failure modes, side effects, or what happens on invalid input.
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 compact sentence with no filler. The key action is front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the description is incomplete for safe invocation: it does not explain the two required parameters, return format, or error behavior. Given no annotations and no output schema, an agent is left guessing about important call details.
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 for the two undocumented parameters. It mentions the concept of a 'biblioteca' but does not clarify the roles of 'query' versus 'libraryName', leaving a critical ambiguity for an agent.
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 states a specific action—resolve a library to a Context7-compatible ID—and explicitly positions it as a prerequisite before consulting documentation. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling context7__query_docs tool.
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 phrase 'antes de consultar documentação' gives clear contextual guidance: use this tool before querying docs. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It correctly states the tool returns a structured summary, implying a read operation, but it does not disclose failure behavior for invalid slugs or confirm there are no side effects. This is a minor gap for a simple getter.
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. It communicates the action, resource, and input mechanism efficiently.
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 tool's simplicity — one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema — the description and schema together provide enough context for an agent to call it correctly. A bit more detail about the shape of the 'structured summary' would improve completeness, but it is not essential.
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%, so the schema already fully documents the slug parameter. The description only repeats the slug concept without adding format details, edge cases, or additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Devolve' (returns) and the specific resource: a structured summary of a Nexus project from a folder slug. It is distinct from sibling tools like nexus_search, nexus_create_draft, and nexus_list_recent, though it does not explicitly name them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: call this when you have a Nexus folder slug and want the structured project summary. There is no explicit guidance about when to use an alternative tool like nexus_search when the slug is unknown, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what happens to page state, form data, or whether navigation can fail if history is empty. It simply restates the action with no added value beyond the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is as concise as possible while conveying the essential 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?
For a simple navigation tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is functionally complete. One could argue it might mention failure behavior or state changes, but the annotations already cover the destructive nature. The description does not leave any obvious gaps that would prevent correct invocation.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (validated by the empty properties object). Per the calibration, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; the description correctly focuses on the action without needing parameter details.
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 'Go back to the previous page in the history' uses a clear verb and resource, and is unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling navigation tools like browser_navigate by focusing on backward history traversal, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_navigate or browser_forward. The description only states the action without contextualizing when it's appropriate or mentioning 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, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It communicates a read-only, automatic detection behavior and enumerates the detected values, but it does not state failure modes, return shape, or whether any Docker state is required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The entire description is a single focused sentence with no fluff, front-loading the action and listing the specific detection targets.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly and know the result domain: stack technology and Docker monorepo root. It could be more complete with return-format details, but the invocation surface is trivial.
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 is empty and has no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter complexity is zero.
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 uses the specific verb 'Detecta' and identifies the resource: the folder's technology (NestJS/React/Angular) and the Docker monorepo root. This makes the tool's function clear and separates it from management/browser-focused siblings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit 'use when' or 'instead of' guidance is provided. The context is implied: call it when you need automatic stack/root detection with zero parameters, but alternatives such as gerenciar_docker_monorepo are not contrasted.
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 confirms the destructive and non-read-only character implied by the annotations by naming 'create' and 'close'. It adds little beyond that; select/list behavior is self-evident, and no side effects such as closing the current tab when index is omitted are described here (though the schema mentions it).
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 short, front-loaded sentence covers all operations without redundancy. Every word contributes.
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?
With no output schema, the 'list' action's return format is not described, which could leave an agent unable to obtain tab indices for later select/close calls. Otherwise, the schema and annotations cover the main calling requirements for this simple 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 description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter meanings. It adds no detail beyond the schema, leaving the baseline of 3 appropriate.
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 names a specific resource ('browser tab') and four distinct operations (list, create, close, select), matching all action enum values. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling browser tools that navigate, click, or close the whole browser.
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 supported operations imply when to use it: any tab-management need. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as browser_navigate (for opening a URL in the current tab) or browser_close (for closing the browser), so the comparison must be inferred.
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?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds valuable context: execution is RCE-equivalent and runs in the Playwright server process. This goes beyond the structured annotations by giving the agent a concrete risk profile without contradicting them.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys both the operation and the critical safety caveat with no filler. The structure makes the danger immediately visible before any other details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an open-ended code-execution tool with no output schema, the description plus rich schema covers invocation, parameters, and risk. It does not mention that return values depend on the snippet's return, but this is inherent to running arbitrary code, and the essential safety context is present.
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%, with both parameters thoroughly documented in the schema itself, including invocation details and precedence behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline-3 rule 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?
States a specific verb ('Run'), a resource ('a Playwright code snippet'), and a clear scope ('executes arbitrary JavaScript in the Playwright server process'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_evaluate by emphasizing server-process execution and RCE-equivalence, making selection unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 the many Playwright siblings, especially browser_evaluate. The 'unsafe' and 'RCE-equivalent' warnings imply caution but do not state when the tool should be preferred or avoided, nor do they name an alternative.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that this produces an accessibility snapshot, not a screenshot, but it does not describe the output structure, pagination, or limitations. This is acceptable but not rich context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with the core action front-loaded. The '[playwright]' prefix is minor noise and the comparative claim adds some value, so overall it is efficient without being bloated.
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 has four optional parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety. The description gives enough to understand the core purpose and main alternative, but does not explain what an accessibility snapshot contains or how it relates to element references used by the 'target' parameter. It is minimally sufficient but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries that burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Capture') and resource ('accessibility snapshot of the current page'), making the action unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from screenshot tools by claiming it is 'better than screenshot', which helps differentiate it from the sibling playwright__browser_take_screenshot.
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 context: use this tool to capture an accessibility snapshot rather than a visual screenshot. It names the general alternative ('screenshot') and gives a preference rationale, though it does not explicitly state when screenshots would still be preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that the operation creates a draft and will not overwrite existing drafts. However, it does not mention return values, error behavior, or side effects beyond creation, leaving moderate 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence states the action, target types, location, and key safety behavior with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 definition is sufficient for invoking the tool: required and conditional parameters are known, and the non-overwrite behavior is stated. However, there is no output schema and no description of what the tool returns or how success/failure is signaled, which leaves some uncertainty for an agent.
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 only 25%, but the one non-obvious parameter ('projeto') is adequately described in the schema. The description adds little for 'tipo', 'titulo', and 'conteudo', though these are largely self-explanatory and the prose echoes the enum values. This is adequate but does not fully compensate for the low 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 states a specific action ('Cria um rascunho') on a clear resource ('draft de ideia, briefing ou proposta no Nexus'), and adds a distinguishing guarantee ('sem sobrescrever rascunhos existentes'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like nexus_search, nexus_get_project, and nexus_list_recent.
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 intended use is clear: creating new drafts of idea, briefing, or proposal. The phrase 'sem sobrescrever rascunhos existentes' provides a meaningful condition/exclusion, though no alternative tool is named or explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals a read-only operation through 'Lista' and adds useful behavioral detail: files are ordered by modification recency and restricted to the projects/ area. It does not mention auth/rate limits, but for a simple listing tool the core behavior is adequately disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action, sorting criterion, and scope, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no nested objects, the description covers the key invocation context: what is listed, how it is ordered, and where to look. The only minor gap is that, with no output schema, the expected return shape is not explicitly detailed, though 'arquivos' gives a reasonable conceptual expectation.
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 only parameter, limit, is already fully documented with type, optionality, and default value. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, 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 states a specific verb ('Lista'), a concrete resource ('arquivos modificados mais recentemente'), and a bounded scope ('projects/ no Nexus'). This makes the purpose immediately clear and distinguishable from sibling tools like nexus_search, nexus_get_project, and nexus_create_draft, even without an explicit comparison.
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 a use case: retrieving recently modified files. However, it does not give explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as nexus_search or nexus_get_project, nor does it mention when not to use it. Usage is inferable but not stated.
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?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds helpful context about external-drag semantics and MIME-typed data, but it does not disclose likely page-side effects such as uploads, navigation, or handlers triggered by the drop.
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 concise, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence contributes useful information. The essential constraint is stated clearly without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description and schema together give enough to call the tool correctly: target selection, paths/data alternatives, and drop behavior. It is slightly incomplete on when to prefer this over file_upload or drag, and on expected return/result behavior, but those are minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by stating the 'at least one of paths or data' constraint and clarifying that data is a MIME-type-to-value map, which is not fully explicit 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 states a specific verb ('Drop') and resource ('files or MIME-typed data onto an element'). 'As if dragged from outside the page' clearly distinguishes it from in-page drag tools like playwright__browser_drag.
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?
It gives the key precondition that at least one of 'paths' or 'data' must be provided. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this over alternatives such as playwright__browser_drag or playwright__browser_file_upload, so usage guidance is only implied.
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?
Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing the non-interactive nature of screenshots and directing agents to browser_snapshot for actions. This is a meaningful behavioral limitation not captured by the schema or 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?
Two concise sentences with no filler: the first states the core action, and the second delivers a critical usage caveat. The warning is front-loaded enough to be noticed before invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a six-parameter tool with thorough schema documentation and safety annotations, the description covers the key behavioral distinction from browser_snapshot. The lack of an output schema means return-value behavior is not explicitly described, but the filename parameter and the nature of 'screenshot' make the file-saving outcome reasonably inferable.
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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for all parameters, including enum semantics for 'scale' and the interplay between 'fullPage' and element screenshots. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool takes a screenshot of the current page with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from browser_snapshot by noting screenshots cannot drive actions. However, it omits the element screenshot capability exposed by the 'target' and 'element' parameters, so the stated scope is slightly narrower than the tool's actual functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns against using this tool for action-taking and points to browser_snapshot as the alternative, which is clear when-not guidance. It does not explicitly enumerate positive use cases for screenshots, but the purpose is evident from the action described.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating it returns full headers/body or a single part if `part` is set, which tells the agent what kind of data to expect.
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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence defines the core behavior and another gives the one essential usage instruction. 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.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only lookup tool with a fully described schema and relevant annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the required input, the output scope, and the relationship to browser_network_requests. The main gap is that no output schema exists and the exact response structure beyond 'headers and body' isn't detailed, though this is minor.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some value by clarifying that the index comes from browser_network_requests and that omitting `part` returns full details, but most parameter meaning is already 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 the tool's verb and resource: 'Returns full details ... of a single network request.' It also references browser_network_requests as the source of the index, which distinguishes this detail-retrieval tool from the list-retrieval sibling.
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?
Provides clear usage context by instructing the agent to 'Use the number from browser_network_requests', which establishes the prerequisite and workflow. It does not explicitly describe when-not-to-use or list alternative tools, but the dependency on the listing tool is clear enough.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context: the list is scoped to requests since page load, is numbered, and is intended as a summary entry point for the singular detail tool. No contradiction with 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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first states what the tool returns and its scope, the second explains the follow-up workflow. Every sentence contributes information an agent needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only list tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it defines the result, scope, and the companion tool for details. It could add more explicit return-format detail, but 'numbered list' plus the schema's mention of text output covers the main needs.
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%, so filter, static, and filename already have clear definitions. The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning beyond indicating that numbers from this list feed browser_network_request, so the baseline score 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 states a specific action ('Returns'), a specific resource ('network requests'), and a clear temporal scope ('since loading the page'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling browser_network_request by pointing to that tool for full details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly directs the agent to browser_network_request with the returned number when full request details are needed, so the relationship between the two tools is clear. It lacks an explicit statement of when not to use this tool, but the list-versus-detail workflow is evident.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about what is returned: matching snapshot nodes with surrounding context, a path from the root, and search-snippet-like formatting. This goes beyond the structured 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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by return format, path context, and cost comparison. Every clause earns its place.
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 read-only search tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return format and the practical reason to use it. An agent can determine inputs, expected output, and how this differs from the full snapshot without additional context.
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 schema already documents text matching as case-insensitive substring, regex as case-sensitive by default with slash flags, and the 'provide either, not both' constraint. The description restates 'text or a regular expression' but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the accessibility snapshot of the current page for text or a regular expression.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling playwright__browser_snapshot by framing itself as a cheaper, targeted alternative for locating an element and its ref.
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 explains when to prefer this tool: 'cheaper than capturing the whole snapshot when you only need to locate an element and its ref.' This gives clear usage context relative to the snapshot tool, though it does not name that sibling explicitly or state when not to use it in exclusionary terms.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the tool's iterative behavior—hypothesis generation, verification, revision, and looping until satisfied—well beyond the annotations' read-only/idempotent hints. No contradiction with annotations; it enriches them with process details like branching and backtracking.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is lengthy and repetitive: 'adjust total_thoughts up or down', 'question or revise previous thoughts', and 'add more thoughts' each appear in the Key Features, Parameters, and You Should sections. While sectioned, the redundancy means not every sentence earns its place.
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 9-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, parameter semantics, and behavioral guidance, including when to stop. The presence of an output schema removes the need to detail return values, so nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 100% schema coverage, the description's 'Parameters explained' section adds meaningful semantics: e.g., thought can include revisions/hypotheses, nextThoughtNeeded should only be false when truly done, totalThoughts can be adjusted. This genuinely helps an agent use parameters 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 identifies this as a tool for dynamic, reflective problem-solving through sequential thoughts, distinguishing it from the browser and context tools in its siblings. The verb-plus-resource framing ('helps analyze problems through a flexible thinking process') is specific and immediately recognizable.
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 'When to use this tool' section with explicit scenarios (complex multi-step problems, planning, course correction, maintaining context), giving clear context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.
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/danisluz/mcp-luz'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server