Exarp

by davidl71

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from alignment analysis to task management to MLX integration. Descriptions are detailed and sets of actions are well-defined within each tool, minimizing overlap.
Naming Consistency4/5
Names are consistently lowercase with underscores, but some are verbs (e.g., 'lint', 'recommend') while others are nouns (e.g., 'memory', 'security'), creating slight inconsistency. However, the pattern is predictable and readable.
Tool Count3/5
27 tools is slightly heavy but within reason for a comprehensive development assistant. The 'unified' approach consolidates many actions per tool, justifying the count, though some tools like 'automation' lack description.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers a wide range: task management, testing, security, AI integration, memory, reporting, and more. Minor gaps like lack of direct code generation or explicit version control are offset by related tools like linting, testing, and git-inspired task management.
Average 3.3/5 across 27 of 27 tools scored. Lowest: 1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It mentions scanning and modifying files but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or what happens to files, which is critical for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) but severely under-specified. While brevity is valued, it sacrifices clarity and completeness, leaving many necessary questions unanswered.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's functionality, how files are selected, or the impact of parameters, which is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters (dry_run, output_path, min_file_size). The agent cannot infer their purpose or behavior from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Tool hints. Files scanned, modified, hints added.' is vague and lacks a clear verb-resource structure. It does not specify what 'hints' are or how they are added, and fails to distinguish the tool from numerous sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context for appropriate usage, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., data modification in merge/set_branch), state changes, or authorization needs. Only action names are listed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise but repeats 'Unified git-inspired' and includes a potentially confusing HINT line. The action list is structured but lacks explanatory context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (16 params, multiple actions, no schema descriptions), the description is insufficient. It does not explain how actions differ, what parameters are required for each, or expected outcomes. An output schema exists but is not referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description adds little meaning to the 16 parameters. It only mentions some parameters briefly in action descriptions (e.g., task_id, branch for commits). Most parameters like limit, format, commit1, commit2, conflict_strategy are unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it is a 'unified git-inspired task management tool' with actions like commits, branches, tasks, etc. The purpose is somewhat clear but broad, as it bundles multiple operations. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools, which include many task-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists actions but does not explain scenarios for each, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, mutability, authentication, rate limits, or resource consumption for actions like 'pull' or 'generate'. The deep behavior remains opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise, using a hint and bullet list. However, the structure could be improved by grouping parameters by action or providing a more logical flow. It is not wasteful but lacks clarity for complex usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 actions, 15 parameters, output schema present), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use parameters, what the output looks like, or provide examples. The agent would struggle to use all features correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 15 parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain any parameter's role or how it relates to the listed actions. The agent receives no semantic help beyond parameter names like 'host' or 'stream'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly lists eight distinct actions with one-line descriptions, each specifying a verb and resource (e.g., 'Check if Ollama server is running'). However, the 'unified' nature makes the tool's singular purpose somewhat broad, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'mlx'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., Ollama running) or suggest which action to use in specific scenarios. Sibling tools are listed but not differentiated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must reveal behavioral traits. It mentions GPU acceleration but omits side effects, installation requirements, read-only versus write behavior, or error conditions. For example, the 'generate' action likely modifies local state, but this is not disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, uses bullet points for actions, and front-loads the tool's purpose. However, the opening HINT line adds minimal value and could be removed to improve conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, multiple actions, and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain when to use each action, how output looks, or dependencies. A more complete description would clarify parameter roles and output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It only documents the 'action' parameter (listing its four possible values). The other five parameters (prompt, model, max_tokens, temperature, verbose) receive no explanation, leaving the agent unable to determine their purpose or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a unified MLX tool for Apple Silicon GPU acceleration and enumerates four actions (status, hardware, models, generate). This provides a specific verb-resource mapping and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ollama or git_tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the 27 sibling tools. No when-not-to-use instructions or context for choosing specific actions are 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?
The description explicitly notes the side effect of creating a file when 'output_path' is specified, which is good for a tool with no annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies existing files or requires specific permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is mostly concise and uses bullet points and emojis for clarity. However, it repeats the action list in the hint and then again in bullets, which is redundant. The structure could be tighter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count (14) and zero schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It covers actions but not the many optional parameters. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still lacks completeness for parameter semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage and 14 parameters, the description only explains the 'action' parameter via the bulleted list. Other parameters like scores, include_booleans, and project_name are not explained, leaving gaps that the schema does not fill.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it is for 'Unified report generation' and lists specific actions (overview, scorecard, briefing, prd), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'health' or 'analyze_alignment', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists four actions but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behaviors: two modes, auto-fix capability, and output type. However, it lacks details on error handling, default behavior when parameters are omitted, and how analyze mode processes the problems JSON. No annotations are provided to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with bullet points and emojis but is verbose and includes informal 'HINT' formatting. It could be more concise while retaining clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters, no schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not fully explain all parameters or the output structure despite an output schema existing. Key behavioral details are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain all 10 parameters. It only covers action, fix, and mentions problems_json. Parameters like select, ignore, include_hints, output_path, and the analyze boolean are not described, leaving significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a linting tool with two distinct actions (run and analyze). It specifies the linter (ruff/flake8) and side effects (auto-fix). Among sibling tools, none are lint-related, so it stands out.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when to choose run vs analyze. The description only hints at the action parameter without explaining selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions output (installation status) and side effect (installs hooks unless dry_run=True). However, it does not detail file system changes, permissions, or reversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with a hint, bullet list, and emoji indicators. It front-loads the purpose but includes some redundancy (e.g., 'Unified hooks setup' repeated).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given six parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It omits details on 'hooks' array, 'patterns' string, 'config_path', and 'install' parameter behavior. Output is vaguely described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It only explains 'action' (git/patterns) and mentions 'dry_run'. The other four parameters (hooks, patterns, config_path, install) are not described, leaving significant ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it installs automation hooks and categorizes into git hooks and pattern triggers via action parameter. It distinguishes between two main use cases but does not differentiate from sibling tools like git_tools or automation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage via action parameter values ('git' vs 'patterns') but provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to other tools. No alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the side effect of potentially creating Todo2 tasks via create_tasks. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits like permissions, rate limits, or whether it modifies files (beyond creating tasks).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise, using bullet points and emojis for clarity. It front-loads the main purpose and actions. Minor clutter from the hint line and emojis, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (not shown) and 6 params. The description covers only one action parameter. While output schema may document return values, the lack of parameter descriptions and limited behavioral context (e.g., no mention of file_patterns filtering) makes it incomplete for proper tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fill the gap. It only explains the 'action' parameter and its values. The other 5 parameters (file_patterns, include_fixme, doc_path, output_path, create_tasks) are not described, leaving the agent without guidance on their meaning or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool discovers tasks from various sources (comments, markdown, orphans, all). It explains each action, making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like task_analysis or task_workflow, though the actions imply a unique discovery function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists the actions and their sources, giving implied usage context. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The hint at the start is somewhat generic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return values (AGENT/ASK/MANUAL with confidence) and implies a read-only operation via 'infer'. However, it does not explain how tool patterns are used, potential side effects, or authorization requirements, leaving gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences plus a hint) with no wasted words. The hint line may be extraneous, but overall it is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the key purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear output schema), the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks context on how tool patterns are derived, confidence interpretation, and when to use the force_recompute parameter, leaving it partially incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single boolean parameter 'force_recompute' described in the schema. The description adds no additional information about this parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool infers session mode and returns AGENT/ASK/MANUAL with confidence. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('infer current session mode') and distinguishes from siblings like 'session' or 'workflow_mode' by focusing on inference from tool patterns, though not explicitly compared.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'session' or 'workflow_mode'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states 'Side Effects: None (read-only)', which is good transparency given no annotations. It also describes the output format. However, it does not mention potential rate limits or dependencies on external services like Dependabot API.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with bullet points and emojis, making it readable. However, it includes a redundant hint line and could be more concise. It is adequate but not optimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters and an output schema, the description fails to explain which parameters apply to which actions, offers no examples, and does not cover edge cases. The output format is described, but parameter usage is largely absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description only clarifies the 'action' parameter's three values. It does not explain the purpose or usage of the other six parameters (repo, languages, config_path, state, include_dismissed, alert_critical), leaving a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it's a unified security analysis tool with three actions (scan, alerts, report) and specifies what each does. It differentiates from sibling 'report' by calling it a combined security report, but could be more explicit about when to use this vs the 'report' sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for security vulnerabilities and Dependabot alerts by listing actions, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavioral traits like side effects ('Creates tasks for docs action') and output format. However, it lacks details on destructive actions, authorization, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with a HINT, and uses bullet points for action options. Every sentence adds value, though the emoji and formatting could be streamlined for machine parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description fails to cover most parameters. The output schema exists, but the description does not leverage it. The tool's purpose is clear, but parameter details are insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only explains the 'action' parameter's values. The other 9 parameters (agent_name, check_remote, etc.) are not described, leaving the agent uninformed about their usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly defines the tool as a unified health check with specific actions (server, git, docs, dod, cicd). It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('health status/metrics'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like automation or context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for health checking but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools are not mentioned, and no criteria like 'use this before running other tools' 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?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, state changes, or authentication requirements. For example, it doesn't clarify if 'prime' modifies session state or if 'handoff' requires multi-device coordination details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with a short introductory sentence and a bulleted list of actions. The initial '[HINT: ...]' adds minor noise but does not significantly detract from structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count (25), zero schema coverage, and no output schema usage, the description is incomplete. It fails to map parameters to actions, provide examples, or explain behavior for the majority of inputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only explains the 'action' parameter by listing its possible values. The remaining 24 parameters (like include_hints, task_id, etc.) are not described, leaving the agent without guidance on their purpose or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it's a unified session management tool for actions: prime, handoff, prompts, and assignee. It distinguishes from sibling tools by consolidating multiple session-related functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists four specific actions with brief explanations, providing clear context for when to use each. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses side effects (creates compliance report and optional Todo2 tasks), typical runtime (1-3 seconds), and output format (score, status, issues). Since no annotations are provided, this transparency is valuable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear structure: hint, bullet list of checks, and a final line with output, side effects, and runtime. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, the description covers purpose, checks, output, side effects, and runtime. An output schema is not provided but the description sufficiently explains return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions including defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks attribution compliance across the codebase and lists specific checks (missing attribution, missing entries, uncredited references, dependency license compliance). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_alignment or security.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lint or security. The description only states what the tool does, without context on prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses side effects (creates/updates config files) and mentions dry_run to avoid side effects. However, it does not detail whether overwriting occurs by default or other destructive potential, though the overwrite parameter exists. Still, it provides useful behavioral context beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately concise but includes unnecessary formatting (emojis, markdown headers, bold) and some redundancy. It front-loads the purpose but could be streamlined. It earns its keep but has some extraneous elements.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It covers only two parameters and the output type, leaving major gaps in understanding required inputs. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing parameter explanations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains only the 'action' and 'dry_run' parameters, leaving 7 other parameters (e.g., rules, overwrite, analyze_only) undocumented. This is insufficient for an agent to understand how to use the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it generates IDE config files and lists three specific actions (rules, ignore, simplify) with distinct outputs. This makes the tool's purpose specific and distinguishable from siblings, as no other tool in the sibling list performs config generation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a hint about action values and briefly mentions outcomes for each, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The sibling list is large, but no direct competitor is named; usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses side effects for log action (writes to disk) and output types, but does not fully describe analyze action's behavior or potential side effects. With no annotations, this is a moderate disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is somewhat concise but includes redundant '[HINT]' line and emoji formatting that adds noise. Could be streamlined without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to cover most parameters. Output description is vague ('log confirmation or iteration statistics'). Missing details on return format and parameter constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so description must explain parameters. Only action and prompt are explained; task_id, mode, outcome, iteration, days are left undocumented, leaving significant ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states purpose with specific verbs (log, analyze) and resource (prompt tracking). It differentiates two actions effectively, and sibling tools do not overlap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context for each action (log vs analyze), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses side effects: 'Modifies tasks (duplicates with auto_fix, tags without dry_run)'. However, it does not mention other potential behaviors like file writing via output_path or performance impacts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise with clear bullet points. The HINT line is slightly redundant but not harmful. Emojis add visual cues. Could be slightly more structured but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description covers actions and side effects but lacks parameter details. The presence of an output schema (not shown) may partially fill the return-value gap, but the tool remains incomplete without parameter explanations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only briefly mentions 'action' and hints at auto_fix/dry_run in side effects. The other 7 parameters (similarity_threshold, custom_rules, remove_tags, etc.) are entirely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs 'task analysis' with multiple specific actions (duplicates, tags, hierarchy, dependencies, parallelization). It distinguishes from siblings like task_discovery and task_workflow by focusing on analysis of existing tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like task_discovery, task_workflow, or other siblings. The description implies usage through listed actions but does not provide criteria for tool selection.
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 mentions side effects: 'Modifies memories (gc/prune/consolidate with dry_run=False)'. It also hints at the dry_run parameter. However, it does not cover other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or idempotency. Given no annotations, the burden is partially met but could be more comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with a hint line, an overview, and bullet points for actions and output/side effects. It front-loads the purpose. However, some redundancy exists (e.g., the hint line restates the actions) and the emoji decorations add little value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 15 parameters, no output schema (though hinted at 'Maintenance results with recommendations'), and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It focuses on the action parameter but neglects the majority of other parameters that control the behavior. The agent likely needs more detailed parameter documentation to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage and 15 parameters, the description only explains the 'action' parameter in detail. It mentions 'dry_run' indirectly in the side effects note, but other parameters (max_age_days, value_threshold, etc.) are not explained at all. This is insufficient for an agent to understand how to set them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Unified memory maintenance' and enumerates five distinct actions (health, gc, prune, consolidate, dream), each with a clear purpose. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like 'memory' or 'health' by focusing on lifecycle management.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Each action is described with a brief explanation of when to use it (e.g., 'health' for metrics, 'gc' for garbage collection). However, no explicit guidance is given for when NOT to use the tool or alternatives, though the action descriptions imply usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states 'Side Effects: None' and 'Typical Runtime: <10ms', adding behavioral context beyond the absent annotations. It also describes the output format, though it could elaborate on action-specific behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence plus an emoji-laced summary. The hint line front-loads key info (actions). Every part earns its place with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 actions, 9 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description gives a high-level overview but lacks details on action-specific behaviors or parameter relationships. It is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., action, data, level).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a 'unified context management tool' for 'summarization, budgeting, and batch operations', with actions listed in the hint. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_alignment' or 'automation'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over its siblings (e.g., 'analyze_alignment', 'automation'). It does not mention alternatives or contexts where this tool is inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses actions, output nature ('Estimation results based on action'), typical runtime (e.g., 'estimate: <1 second'), and MLX enhancement details ('30-40% better accuracy'). It does not mention destructive actions, auth needs, or errors, but the provided behavioral info is sufficient for a read-like tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is somewhat structured with a hint, a paragraph, and bullet points, but it includes redundant phrasing (e.g., repeated 'Unified task duration estimation tool') and the hint is unnecessary. It could be more concise while maintaining clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters (0 required), no annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description provides the overall purpose and action modes but lacks details on return format, error handling, or how to properly invoke each action. The output schema likely compensates for return values, but the description could be more complete for a multi-action tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 90% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions actions and MLX parameters but does not elaborate on parameter constraints or usage nuances. The undocumented 'tag_list' parameter is not addressed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Unified task duration estimation tool consolidating estimation, accuracy analysis, and statistics.' It distinguishes itself from 27 sibling tools by focusing solely on estimation tasks, with explicit actions (estimate, analyze, stats) and unique features like MLX enhancement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description outlines the three actions and their purposes, implying when to use each (e.g., 'estimate' for generating time estimates, 'analyze' for accuracy analysis). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, and does not mention any prerequisites or context where another tool would be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states side effects ('Modifies task states'), output format, and typical runtime, which gives good transparency about behavior beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a hint, summary, action list, and metadata (output, side effects, runtime). No unnecessary words, and key information is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 17 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main actions and side effects. It could be more explicit about parameter dependencies per action, but the schema and action list provide sufficient context for most use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by grouping parameters under actions (e.g., 'sub_action' for clarify) but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already describes.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a unified task workflow tool consolidating sync, approval, clarification, clarity, and cleanup actions. Each action is briefly explained, making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like task_analysis or task_discovery.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists actions and their purposes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools are available but no guidance is provided on choosing between them, leaving usage implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses side effects ('may update tool visibility and send notifications'), typical runtime (<100ms), and output type. However, it does not detail permissions, reversibility, or failure modes, leaving some opacity for a state-modifying tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections, bullet points, and emoji cues, making it scannable. However, it is somewhat verbose with redundant elements like the HINT prefix and mode list that could be streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high schema coverage, presence of output schema, and moderate tool complexity, the description covers essential aspects: actions, modes, output type, side effects, and performance. No critical gaps are evident.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 88%, so the schema already describes most parameters. The description adds context for actions and modes but does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a unified workflow mode management tool, listing specific actions (focus, suggest, stats) and modes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like infer_session_mode and context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides action-specific usage (focus for modes/groups, suggest for suggestions, stats for analytics) and lists available modes for the focus action. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, so it lacks exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states side effects (creates/retrieves memory files) and output (Memory operation results). This provides adequate transparency about the tool's behavior, though it could mention file namespace or persistence details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise, using a hint format and bullet-like lines. It front-loads the key actions and categories. Could be slightly more streamlined, but generally efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, 3 actions) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the major usage modes and categories. It lacks exhaustive parameter details but provides enough context for basic operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains action values and mentions categories, title, content, query, and task_id. However, it does not explain metadata, include_related, limit, or default values for all parameters. Partial coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a unified memory management tool with three distinct actions (save, recall, search) and categories. It differentiates from sibling tools like memory_maint by specifying its specific operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for each action: save for storing insights, recall for retrieving by task_id, and search for querying. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidelines are sufficient for an AI agent to select the appropriate action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses side effects (generating reports), output format, and hints at behavioral traits for each action. It does not mention authentication needs or potential destructive actions (like modifying files), but the side-effect information is useful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a hint line, bullet points, and emoji lines. It is relatively concise but includes some redundant emoji formatting. Every sentence adds value, but the emoji use could be considered slightly excessive for a production tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (12 params, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) but an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand the tool's capabilities. It covers all four actions and their typical outputs. However, it lacks details on error handling or prerequisites for each action, which would be helpful for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'action' parameter values (run, coverage, suggest, validate) and mentions 'test_framework' options (pytest/unittest/ctest). However, many parameters like 'verbose', 'coverage_file', and 'min_confidence' are not described, leaving gaps for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly defines the tool's purpose as a unified testing tool with four distinct actions: run, coverage, suggest, and validate. It differentiates from sibling tools by specifying that it handles testing and coverage analysis, which are not covered by other tools like lint or security.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for each action, including when to use them (e.g., 'Execute test suite', 'Analyze test coverage', etc.). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, but the actions are well-defined enough for an agent to decide.
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 bears full responsibility. It discloses side effects ('May log consultations for advisor action') and typical runtime ('<1 second'), which adds behavioral context. However, it does not cover auth requirements or potential destructive actions, leaving gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a hint, a concise summary, a bulleted action list, and an output/side effects/runtime section. Every sentence adds value. No redundancy or fluff. It is easy to scan and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main actions, side effects, and runtime. It could mention the output format or provide more details on how each action uses parameters, but the output schema likely fills that gap. Overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters. The description reinforces the action parameter by listing valid values, but adds little beyond the schema. It does not introduce any new parameter semantics or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Unified recommendation tool consolidating model selection, workflow mode suggestions, and advisor consultations.' It lists specific actions (model, workflow, advisor) with clear purposes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like infer_session_mode or task_analysis, which have different focuses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description outlines when to use each action (e.g., action='model' for model recommendations), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives among the 27 siblings. The lack of exclusions prevents a score of 5.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Side Effects: None' and 'Typical Runtime: <1 second', which are important behavioral traits. The output is also described. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with a hint line and a few lines of text. It uses emojis for structuring but is not overly verbose. The key information is front-loaded. Slightly wordy but acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 optional parameters with full schema coverage and the presence of an output schema, the description covers side effects and runtime, which is adequate. It does not explain return values in depth but the output schema likely handles that. Complete enough for its purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—just summarizes the action parameter roles. It does not deepen understanding of the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a unified catalog tool for browsing tools and getting help. It specifies the actions 'list' and 'help', making the purpose very specific and distinct from siblings like 'automation' or 'memory'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (to list tools or get documentation) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. The context is clear enough given the tool name and schema.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: side effects ('Creates tasks/reports based on action'), typical runtime ('<5 seconds'), and output format ('Alignment scores, misaligned items, recommendations'). This exceeds the burden of disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with a hint and action list. It uses emojis for readability, though it repeats 'Unified alignment analysis tool' twice. Overall, it efficiently communicates key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers inputs, side effects, runtime, and output summary. No critical missing information is identified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it repeats action values and provides a side-effect hint. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a unified alignment analysis tool for Todo2 and PRD. It specifies two distinct actions ('todo2' for task alignment, 'prd' for PRD alignment), providing a specific verb and resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like task_analysis or context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use each action within the tool ('todo2' for task alignment, 'prd' for PRD alignment). However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity about alternatives.
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

project-management-automation MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

[![project-management-automation MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/davidl71/project-management-automation/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/davidl71/project-management-automation)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![project-management-automation MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/davidl71/project-management-automation/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/davidl71/project-management-automation)

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/davidl71/project-management-automation'

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