Delx Agent Utilities
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.2
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, such as DNS lookup vs. RDAP lookup, but some overlap exists (e.g., util_url_health and util_api_health_report both check reachability). Descriptions are clear enough to differentiate, but agents may occasionally confuse similar-sounding tools.
Naming Consistency3/5Names follow a loose snake_case pattern but mix prefixes (delx_utilities_ vs. util_) and vary in structure (e.g., util_base64 vs. util_api_health_report). Some are noun-only, others combine domain and action, leading to moderate inconsistency.
Tool Count3/544 tools is on the high side for a single server. While the server aims to provide a broad utility set, the large number may overwhelm agents and increase selection errors. It is borderline excessive for typical use.
Completeness3/5The tool set covers many web-focused utilities (HTTP, DNS, security, page extraction) but lacks general-purpose tools like string manipulation, math, or advanced data transformation. Gaps exist for operations beyond web analysis, leaving the surface partially incomplete.
Average 2.7/5 across 44 of 44 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 21 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
This server has been verified by its author.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors but fails to do so. It does not explain if the tool performs external requests, requires certain permissions, or details the output format, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no waste, but it is too brief to be effective. While concise, it lacks the structure to convey necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the open-ended input schema and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to specify arguments, or any constraints, making it inadequate for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a generic 'arguments' object with 0% property coverage. The description mentions 'crawl hints, docs links, feeds, and likely reference sections' but does not link them to any parameter structure or explain how to provide these inputs.
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 maps a docs surface and mentions specific elements like crawl hints, docs links, feeds, and reference sections, which differentiates it from sibling tools like util_sitemap_probe and util_links_extract.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context for appropriate use, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It states 'audit' but does not explain side effects, data persistence, authentication needs, or rate limits. The permissive input schema (additionalProperties) further obscures expected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it more under-specified than efficiently structured. It earns credit for being short but not for completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complex task of an audit, the absence of parameter details, output format, and behavioral context makes the description severely incomplete. The agent cannot effectively invoke or interpret results with this minimal information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'arguments' with no description and 0% coverage. The description does not clarify what this argument should contain or how to structure it, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies 'Audit an x402 server' which identifies a verb and resource. It lists areas like discovery, pricing, reliability, and documentation readiness. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as util_x402_server_probe or util_x402_resource_summary, which have similar scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, offering no help for tool 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 carries full burden. It implies a read operation but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or output format. The description lacks behavioral details such as what happens if no forms are found or if the input is invalid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks necessary details and context, making it insufficient. While short, it does not effectively communicate what is needed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of form extraction and the lack of output schema or annotation support, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify input expectations or output structure, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the single parameter 'arguments' beyond it being an object. The description adds no meaning to what the parameter should contain (e.g., URL, HTML content), leaving the agent with no guidance on how to invoke the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it extracts forms, methods, actions, and fields for browser automation and workflow planning, giving a clear verb and resource. However, the term 'methods' and 'actions' are ambiguous, and it does not differentiate from other extract tools like util_page_extract or util_links_extract.
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 prerequisites or conditions. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only says 'fast' but fails to disclose behaviors like error handling, required permissions, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise, though it could add more details without becoming overly long.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the free-form schema, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal to guide correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has a single free-form object with no property descriptions; description does not explain what fields the arguments object should contain.
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 checks sitemap and crawl-structure hints to determine how a site exposes crawlable structure, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like util_robots_inspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites or context for when it should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description omits critical behavioral details such as request method, redirect handling, timeout, and error handling for unreachable URLs. The return values are listed but not the underlying behavior.
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 a single sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with an opaque parameter. Conciseness sacrifices necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, a generic schema with no property descriptions, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to define input format or request behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with a generic 'arguments' object. The description provides no explanation of expected properties (e.g., URL, timeout). The tool's input is a black box.
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 checks URL reachability and returns HTTP status, latency, and key headers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_lookup or http_headers_inspect, though 'reachable' could be more precisely defined (e.g., GET request).
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 like dns_lookup or http_codes. No exclusions or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only lists data sources but does not mention whether the tool is read-only or destructive, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the output looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified. It could be more informative without adding much length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the wildcard parameter, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not provide enough information for an agent to correctly use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single wildcard object parameter with 0% coverage. The description does not explain what properties the 'arguments' object should contain, leaving the agent with no guidance on how to invoke the tool.
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 builds a 'contact pack' from multiple listed sources (page contacts, forms, social links, registrar, disclosure channels), which distinguishes it from siblings like util_contact_extract that likely handle individual sources. However, 'contact pack' is somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like util_contact_extract, util_forms_extract, etc. The description fails to provide any context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'summarize' but does not disclose whether the tool makes network requests, is read-only, or has any side effects. Behavioral traits are vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks structure or additional details that would improve clarity.
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 summarizes multi-channel content distribution, the description omits input format, output structure, and any prerequisites. Without annotations or output schema, it is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single 'arguments' object with additionalProperties, providing no structure. The description does not explain what properties the arguments should contain (e.g., site URL). Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds zero semantic 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 clearly states the tool summarizes content distribution across Open Graph, feeds, socials, and crawl surface. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like util_open_graph or util_feed_discover. The description does not mention scenarios or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose behavioral details such as whether it makes HTTP requests, follows redirects, or handles errors. It only describes what is inspected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no fluff, but lacks any structural elements like bullet points or sections. It is concise but too brief to be fully helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and a vague input schema, the description does not provide enough context for the agent to correctly invoke the tool. Missing details about input format, output, and behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single 'arguments' object with no property descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds no parameter information whatsoever, leaving the agent without guidance on how to format the input.
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?
Clearly states it inspects security, cache, redirect, and server headers, and the goal is to audit a URL. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the input argument structure, which is slightly vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among siblings. The phrase 'to audit a URL quickly' implies usage but doesn't provide when-not or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'Map internal and external links,' omitting details like whether the tool follows redirects, handles JavaScript, or what link types are included. No information on error handling or authentication needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 14-word sentence, demonstrating conciseness. However, it sacrifices necessary detail—especially about input format—making it less effective. It could be expanded without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the freeform input schema, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain input structure, return format, or constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'arguments' (freeform object with additionalProperties true, 0% coverage). The description adds no guidance on required properties (e.g., URL, page content). The agent cannot infer what to pass without external knowledge.
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 'Map internal and external links on a page for crawling, routing, and site inspection,' which clearly identifies the tool's action (mapping links) and resource (a page). It distinguishes from sibling tools like util_page_extract or util_url_health by specifying link extraction, but does not mention how the page is specified (e.g., URL), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include many page inspection tools (e.g., util_page_extract, util_robots_inspect), but the description provides no context for when link extraction is appropriate or preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'score an MCP server'. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool performs any destructive actions, requires authentication, has rate limits, or accesses external resources. The reader has no idea about side effects or prerequisites. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is too brief for the complexity of the tool, missing essential details. While front-loaded with the purpose, it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It earns a 3 because it is not verbose but lacks necessary structure for a complete definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (scoring a server on multiple criteria) and the lack of output schema, parameter details, or annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain the scoring methodology, return format, or how to specify the server. Even for a simple tool, this level of detail is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly without guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single parameter 'arguments' of type object with additionalProperties true, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not clarify what properties the arguments object should contain, despite the tool needing a server target. The parameter semantics are completely opaque, forcing the agent to guess or rely on external documentation. This is a critical gap.
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's purpose: to score an MCP server on specific criteria (initialize, tools/list, schema hygiene, manifest discovery, agent usability). The verb 'score' and the resource 'MCP server' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like util_api_health_report which target different domains. However, the description does not elaborate on what 'score' means, leaving some ambiguity about the output format.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, ideal context, or when not to use it. As a specialized report tool, some context like 'Use this when evaluating an MCP server's setup' is implied but not stated, and no comparative guidance against similar utilities (e.g., util_api_health_report) is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state if the tool is read-only, what happens if the page is not a pricing page, or any side effects. The behavior is implied but not transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it lacks structure (e.g., listing required inputs, outputs, or examples). It could be more helpful without adding length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (no output schema, no annotations, generic parameter), the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain inputs, outputs, or any constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one generic 'arguments' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description does not specify what keys or values the arguments object should contain, failing to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it extracts pricing-page signals like plan names, free trial hints, CTA patterns, and sales routes. It specifies the resource (pricing page) and type of outputs. However, it does not distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like util_page_extract, which extracts generic page signals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools exist (e.g., util_page_extract, util_forms_extract) but no differentiation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states a summarization action but does not explain how the tool operates (e.g., HTTP requests, required inputs, side effects). No mention of authentication, rate limits, or potential errors. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely makes network calls.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 12-word sentence, which is concise but overly terse. It lacks structure and fails to convey essential information. While brevity is positive, the sentence is not well-formed for tool guidance and omits crucial details, so it balances to a middle score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a free-form input schema with 0% coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain input format, output structure, or how the tool differs from sibling x402 tools. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool with the provided information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required property 'arguments' which is a free-form object with no description. The tool description provides zero additional meaning about what parameters the 'arguments' object should contain. With schema description coverage at 0%, this is a critical omission—the agent has no clue what input to provide.
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 summarizes a server's .well-known/x402 resources, pricing surface, networks, and paths. It identifies the specific resource and aspects covered. However, it does not differentiate from sibling x402 tools like util_x402_server_audit or util_x402_server_probe, so purpose is clear but not fully distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description provides no usage context beyond the basic action, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the probe is read-only, destructive, authenticated, rate-limited, or what side effects occur (e.g., whether it sends multiple requests to the target server). The term 'probe' implies interaction but lacks detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key aspects. However, it omits essential details, making it less efficient for the agent; it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a complex free-form parameter, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the output format, how to interpret results, or any behavioral constraints, leaving the agent without sufficient context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema's sole parameter, 'arguments', is an unconstrained object with no documented structure. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what properties are expected or how to form the argument. It provides none, leaving the agent unable to construct valid input.
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 uses the verb 'Probe' and specifies the resource 'x402 server end-to-end', listing concrete sub-activities like discovery, status, tools, reliability, and OpenAPI. This distinguishes it from siblings like util_x402_resource_summary and util_x402_server_audit by indicating a comprehensive, multi-faceted check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as util_x402_server_audit or util_mcp_server_readiness_report. The description does not mention prerequisites, recommended contexts, or excluded scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior, but it only states the basic operation. It does not mention side effects, input validation, or specific encoding variants (e.g., URL-safe Base64).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, but it sacrifices essential information. It is not verbose, but its brevity makes it minimally adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the open-ended parameter and lack of output schema, the description fails to provide necessary context about input format or return value. It is incomplete for a tool that takes a flexible object.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single parameter 'arguments' as an object with additionalProperties true, and 0% schema coverage. The description adds no explanation of what properties the object should contain or how to specify the string and operation (encode/decode).
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 'Encode or decode' and the resource 'Base64 strings', identifying the tool's function uniquely among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or how to decide between encoding and decoding. The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like input format requirements, error behavior, or handling of edge cases. The description only states conversion without any detail on behavior, leaving the agent uninformed about encoding, headers, or size limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could include more detail without sacrificing 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?
Given the lack of parameter details and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the exact input format (e.g., CSV string vs file path), output structure, or any constraints, which is insufficient for a tool with one parameter and no schema documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage, and the tool description adds no meaning to the single parameter 'arguments'. It does not clarify what keys or structure are expected, making the parameter effectively opaque.
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 'Convert' and the resource 'raw CSV into JSON rows', and it specifies the downstream use cases. While it implicitly distinguishes from the sibling util_json_to_csv, it doesn't explicitly mention the reverse conversion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., util_json_to_csv for reverse conversion). There is no mention of prerequisites or context where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the hashing algorithms and that it hashes a string. Missing details include whether the output is hex-encoded, case sensitivity, error handling for invalid strings, or that it is a pure function. The description is insufficient for accurate agent reasoning.
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 that conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded, but it lacks any structure or elaboration that would help the agent. For a tool with a complex input schema, this conciseness sacrifices completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, the need for algorithm specification, and the free-form input object, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how to choose an algorithm, what the return value looks like, or any example usage. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'arguments' is an object with 'additionalProperties: true', but the description says 'Hash a string', which implies a single string input but does not specify how to structure the object (e.g., property name 'string' or 'input'). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no semantic guidance, leaving the agent to guess the required format.
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 hashes a string with SHA-256, SHA-1, or MD5. The verb 'hash' and resource 'string' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like util_base64 and util_json_validate. However, it does not clarify that the input schema accepts an object rather than a direct string, creating a slight mismatch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give any context about prerequisites or constraints. An agent has no help deciding when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden, but it only describes the output composition, not behavioral traits like making network requests, performance implications, or error states. The flexible input object is unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is concise but lacks necessary details. It is front-loaded but insufficient for tool selection or invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (composite report, flexible input, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain input structure, output format, or operational behavior, making it difficult for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and only one parameter 'arguments' with additionalProperties true. The description does not clarify what keys or values are expected (e.g., URL, domain). The agent cannot infer the required input format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a 'composite website intelligence report' that includes multiple signal types (page, social, link, feed, form, contact). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that extract individual signals, making it clear this tool provides an aggregated report.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this composite report versus the individual extract tools (e.g., util_page_extract, util_links_extract). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses 'No network calls' (a behavioral constraint), but fails to describe what the runtime status includes, whether it has side effects, or what output format to expect. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two clauses) and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. While concise, it lacks enough structure to be fully helpful. A slightly more detailed description would improve without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is marginally adequate but incomplete. It does not explain what the returned status means or how the agent should interpret it. The agent is left with significant uncertainty about the tool's output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the input schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. This is appropriately handled.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Return runtime status', which is a verb+resource but vague. It does not specify what 'runtime status' entails (e.g., internal connectivity, server health). Compared to siblings like 'util_api_health_report', the purpose is implied but not clearly differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Since there are many sibling tools that check status or health, the agent has no basis to choose this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes what is measured but omits behavioral details such as network calls, potential timeouts, rate limits, or that it's read-only and non-destructive. With no annotations, the description should cover these.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence with no fluff, but it omits critical parameter information, making it less effective than it could be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complex measurements and minimal schema, the description should explain input requirements and output format. It provides neither, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage (only an 'arguments' object with additionalProperties true). The description never explains what parameters the endpoint expects (e.g., URL), leaving the agent unable to construct a valid call.
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 it measures endpoint status, latency, redirects, content type, and reachability. This distinguishes it from similar siblings like util_url_health by emphasizing multiple metrics in one call, but does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage for comprehensive API health checks, but no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like util_url_health or util_dns_lookup, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions the combination of health, OpenAPI, and auth hints. It does not disclose what arguments are expected, the format of the output, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, but its brevity sacrifices necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is insufficient given the tool's complexity (combining multiple sources) and the complete lack of output schema or parameter details. The agent cannot determine inputs or expected results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the only parameter is a loosely typed object (additionalProperties). The description adds no information about expected properties, leaving the agent without guidance on what to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to evaluate API surface integration readiness by combining health, OpenAPI, and auth hints. This specific combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like util_api_health_report or util_openapi_summary.
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 indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios where it is not applicable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must convey behavioral traits. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, data impact, or failure behavior. Simply states it is a composite report.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundancy, but oversimplified for a tool with a loosely defined input. Lacks essential detail for usability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and no input structure documentation. Listing included signals is useful but insufficient for an agent to know how to invoke the tool and interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has a single parameter 'arguments' with additionalProperties true, providing no structure. Description does not explain what arguments are expected (e.g., domain name). With 0% schema coverage, this is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a composite trust report including TLS, security.txt, headers, RDAP, DNS, and uptime signals. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are individual inspect utilities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this composite tool versus the individual sibling tools. No prerequisites or context for use are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, description should disclose behavioral traits (e.g., makes live HTTP requests, requires a URL, rate limits, authentication needs). It only states purpose, leaving agent uninformed about side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence is concise but overly minimal. It could front-load the required input format (e.g., 'Provide a URL in arguments') to improve utility without adding much length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that likely performs live web inspection, the description lacks crucial context: input format, output structure, and behavioral constraints (e.g., no output schema, 0% schema coverage). Agent cannot safely invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description does not explain what the 'arguments' object should contain (e.g., URL, options). Agent cannot infer how to properly invoke the tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Inspect' and resource 'auth surface signals' with specific examples (login forms, signup links, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like util_links_extract or util_forms_extract which have different foci.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives among many sibling utilities. The description implies its purpose but does not provide exclusionary criteria or preferred contexts.
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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'likely auth surface' as a hint, but does not specify if the tool is read-only, requires network access, or what side effects occur. The lack of transparency is significant.
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, well-formed sentence. It is concise and front-loaded with the primary action. However, it omits essential details, which would be acceptable if the schema and annotations provided them, but they do not.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, an almost empty output schema, and a single parameter with no description, the tool description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to understand inputs or outputs. It is critically incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single parameter 'arguments' typed as an object with additionalProperties true, and no description. The tool description offers no explanation of what should be provided in that object, leaving the agent without critical information to invoke the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: summarizing an OpenAPI document, including specific elements like title, version, paths, tags, and auth surface. The verb 'summarize' and the named resource make the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as util_api_health_report or util_api_integration_readiness. No context about prerequisites or scenarios is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format. The tool likely performs a network lookup but this is not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the action and resources, but lacks structure for parameter guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the flexible input schema and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to construct the input, what the output contains, or any constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single 'arguments' object with no described properties (0% coverage). The description hints at needing a domain but does not specify required keys or format. An agent cannot determine how to structure the input from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches registrar, status, and registration dates for domain-related purposes. It specifies use cases (trust, compliance, domain ops) distinguishing it from siblings like util_dns_lookup. However, 'status' is vague and could be more specific (e.g., domain status codes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for trust, compliance, and domain operations, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like util_dns_lookup or util_domain_trust_report. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only says 'find' but does not disclose behavior: e.g., whether it performs HTTP requests, what happens if the domain has no security.txt, or any side effects. The agent lacks essential behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it is too terse. While front-loaded with the action, it omits critical invocation details, making it underspecified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the flexible input schema and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not tell the agent how to invoke the tool (what to put in arguments) or what to expect as output. More detail is needed for practical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single required object 'arguments' with additionalProperties true, but the description does not specify what keys the object should contain (e.g., 'domain' or 'url'). With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it completely fails to convey parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool finds security.txt contacts, disclosure policy, and trust links for a domain. It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('security.txt'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like util_robots_inspect for robots.txt.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention scenarios where security.txt inspection is appropriate or when to use other tools like util_dns_lookup or util_http_headers_inspect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the conversion action without disclosing behavior on invalid input, required permissions, read-only nature, or output format. The agent lacks critical safety and usage details.
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 a single sentence, which is too brief and underspecified. While concise, it omits essential details, making it unhelpful. It does not earn its place as a standalone description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of timestamp conversion (three formats, bidirectional conversions, potential error handling), and the lack of schema details, output schema, and behavioral info, the description is grossly incomplete. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the generic 'arguments' object provides no parameter clarity. The description adds zero information about what parameters are needed (e.g., input format, output format, value). The agent has no guidance on how to structure the input.
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 'Convert', the resource 'timestamp formats', and explicitly lists the three supported formats (Unix epoch, ISO 8601, human-readable). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which deal with timestamp conversion.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, no sibling tool directly competes for timestamp conversion, so the usage context is implicitly clear. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only lists inspected fields without disclosing behavioral traits like network requests, permissions, or side effects. It does not describe if the tool performs live network lookups or uses cached data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the key inspection aspects (issuer, subject, SANs, expiry) and the purpose (trust, renewal risk). No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema is absent, and the description does not mention return values or format. For a tool that likely returns structured certificate data, this is a significant gap. Combined with missing parameter guidance, the description is incomplete for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single parameter 'arguments' with additionalProperties: true and no description. Schema description coverage is 0%. The description offers no explanation of what the parameter expects (e.g., a domain name, URL, or certificate file), leaving the agent without necessary context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it inspects TLS certificate details (issuer, subject, SANs, expiry) for trust and renewal risk, using a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling inspection tools like util_dns_lookup or util_http_headers_inspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as util_domain_trust_report or other inspection utilities. There is no mention of prerequisites or appropriate contexts.
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 states 'validate an email and its domain-level delivery records', but does not explain whether it sends emails, checks MX records, or has side effects. The lack of output schema further obscures behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, given the lack of parameter documentation, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is not structured to front-load critical information because critical information (parameter requirements) is missing entirely.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no explicit parameter definitions, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only vaguely describes the purpose without specifying input format, output, or additional behavioral details. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema defines a single 'arguments' object with additionalProperties true, providing no specific parameter details. The description does not mention what should be inside this object (e.g., email address, options). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no guidance on how to structure the input.
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 'validate' and the resource 'email and its domain-level delivery records', providing a specific purpose. It distinguishes from sibling utilities by focusing on email validation with delivery checks, such as util_dns_lookup or util_domain_trust_report.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions when to use the tool ('before outreach, signup, or routing'), giving contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternative sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool makes network requests, may be rate-limited, or what side effects (e.g., data retrieval) occur. The phrase 'find feeds' is too vague for an agent to understand operational characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at 14 words, but this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core function, but fails to include any structural elements like input or output hints. A minimally viable description would need more content, so 'concise' here is a trade-off.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the loose input schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves the agent completely uninformed about how to invoke the tool or interpret results. For a network-based discovery tool, this completeness gap is severe—the agent cannot reliably use it without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'arguments' of type object with additionalProperties true, meaning any properties can be passed. The description adds no meaning to this parameter—it does not specify expected keys like 'url' or 'feedType'. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a critical omission.
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 finds RSS, Atom, and JSON feeds, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like util_sitemap_probe or util_url_health, which focus on other aspects of web resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when an agent wants to subscribe instead of scrape, providing a clear use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare to alternatives among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description reveals only basic behavior: validation and description. It fails to disclose important traits such as read-only nature, error handling, timezone assumptions, or output structure for the scheduled runs.
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 that are front-loaded with the primary action. No superfluous words or irrelevant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description omits crucial details: it does not specify the input format (e.g., a string cron expression inside the 'arguments' object) nor the output format beyond 'plain English' and 'next 5 runs'. For a tool with no output schema and a nested object parameter, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'arguments' parameter at all. The agent receives no guidance on how to pass the cron expression or what properties are expected, making correct invocation difficult.
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-resource pair: 'Validate and describe a cron expression' and specifies the output format ('plain English' and 'next 5 scheduled runs'). It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which involve cron expressions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or similar tools. The agent is given no contextual cues 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, and the description offers minimal behavioral detail. It does not disclose rate limits, caching behavior, error responses, or what happens on failure (e.g., if the domain does not exist). The burden falls entirely on the description, which only states what records are resolved.
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 wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and record types. However, brevity sacrifices some needed detail, but given the simplicity, it remains appropriately sized.
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 DNS lookup tool with no output schema and a bare-minimum input schema, the description omits key details: how to invoke it, expected output format, error handling, and examples. It leaves significant gaps for an agent to use correctly, especially among many sibling utilities.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% coverage (only an 'arguments' object with additionalProperties: true), so the description must compensate. It lists record types but does not explain how to specify the domain or record type in the arguments object, leaving the agent to guess the expected structure. Minimal 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 it resolves DNS record types (A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, TXT, NS) for domain and delivery checks, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like util_domain_trust_report or util_rdap_lookup, but the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for fast domain and delivery checks' implies a quick DNS query use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., util_rdap_lookup for registry data) or when not to use it. The usage context is implied but not clearly delineated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states the tool extracts fields but does not describe any behavioral traits such as network requests, failure modes, rate limits, or side effects. For an extraction tool that likely makes HTTP calls, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, making it concise. However, it lacks structure such as a separate 'when to use' or 'return values' section, which could improve clarity without adding length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and the vague input parameter, the description does not sufficiently explain what the tool returns or how to structure the input. For a utility tool with a free-form parameter and no return type defined, more context is needed for agents to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single parameter 'arguments' of type object with no property descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not clarify what keys should be included (e.g., a 'url' field) or their formats. This leaves agents guessing how to properly invoke the tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly identifies the tool's function: extracting Open Graph and Twitter card fields from a URL. The verb 'Extract' and resource 'Open Graph and Twitter card fields' are specific. However, it does not explicitly state that the input requires a URL, leaving some ambiguity for agents. It distinguishes from siblings by its unique focus on preview rendering.
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 'to preview how a URL will render in feeds and agents' provides context for when to use the tool, but it does not offer guidance on when not to use it or suggest alternative tools. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly 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?
Without annotations, the description only mentions return values but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, error handling, or limitations. The minimal information leaves agents uninformed about tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and no filler. However, it could be structured more effectively by separating purpose from output details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (vague input schema, no output schema) and the complete absence of parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It lacks examples and expected input structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; the single 'arguments' parameter is an open object with no defined properties. The description implies the object should contain a pattern and text but does not specify names, types, or formats, forcing agents to infer.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it tests a regex pattern against text and returns matches, groups, and count. It is a specific verb+resource combination, and no sibling tool performs regex testing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context for its use. The description simply states what it does without usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation but omits details like error handling (e.g., invalid domain, missing robots.txt), rate limits, or whether it performs HTTP requests. The tool's side effects and failure modes are unaddressed.
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 redundant words. Every word adds value, achieving maximum conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the vague parameter schema and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how to specify the target domain, what the return value contains (e.g., parsed rules, raw text), or how to handle multiple sitemaps. The agent lacks sufficient context to confidently invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single generic 'arguments' object with no property descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds no parameter guidance, leaving the agent unsure what fields to provide (e.g., URL, domain). This is a critical gap.
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 specific verbs 'Read' and 'inspect' and identifies the resource 'robots.txt rules and sitemap declarations', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It implies a pre-crawl use case, helping distinguish from sibling tools like util_sitemap_probe, though not explicitly.
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 suggests use 'before crawling or indexing a domain', providing context. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the many sibling utilities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic function. It does not disclose randomness guarantees, error behavior, or any nuances of the generation process, leaving the agent uninformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It earns its place by stating the core purpose, but lacks structure to convey additional important details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple but generic schema and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain input format, number of UUIDs generated, or return format, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning. The sole parameter 'arguments' is a generic object with additionalProperties true, and the description does not clarify what keys or values are accepted.
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 'Generate one or more UUIDv4 strings', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from other utility siblings which are mostly inspection or transformation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description lacks usage context, leaving the agent without direction on 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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It states basic functionality (validate, pretty-print) but omits behavioral traits like side effects, rate limits, or error handling. It does not contradict annotations since none exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, 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?
Given the lack of output schema, the description mentions return values (validity, errors, formatted output) which is adequate. However, missing parameter semantics and usage guidance reduce completeness for a tool with one complex parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter 'arguments' (an object with additionalProperties: true). The description adds no explanation of what to pass or how the parameter relates to validation/pretty-printing.
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 specific verbs 'validate' and 'pretty-print' with the resource 'JSON', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like util_json_to_csv which convert format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as util_json_to_csv or other validation tools. No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits, but it only states the purpose. It does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or produces side effects. The agent cannot infer safety or cost.
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 redundant words. However, it may be too terse, missing opportunities to add value without harming 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?
The tool has zero parameters and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It fails to explain what 'privacy posture' includes, what format the output takes, or any edge cases. An agent lacks sufficient context to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description provides the only semantic value. It clarifies that the tool returns privacy posture information, which is meaningful beyond the empty 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 'return' and identifies a clear resource 'privacy posture', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. The name 'privacy_audit' reinforces this, distinguishing it from the many sibling utility tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision-support information.
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 only gives a high-level purpose with no details on network requests, auth, rate limits, or potential side effects, leaving agents uninformed about non-obvious behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core function and use cases. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the vague input schema and lack of output schema, the description is severely incomplete. Agents cannot infer how to pass the URL or what the output looks like, making the tool difficult to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single required parameter 'arguments' as an arbitrary object with additionalProperties, and the description gives no explanation of what properties to include. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a critical gap.
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 turns any URL into clean page metadata and readable text, specifying use cases for search, routing, and summarization. This distinguishes it from sibling extractors like util_contact_extract or util_forms_extract.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when clean page metadata and readable text from a URL are needed, and mentions specific applications. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the conversion direction without mentioning error handling, input validation, size limits, or what happens with malformed input. This lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and use cases. It could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose, but it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a conversion tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a single loosely-typed parameter, the description lacks essential details about input format, output structure, and edge cases. It is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with one loosely defined parameter 'arguments' (object, additionalProperties). The description adds that input should be 'structured JSON rows', implying a collection of similar objects, but does not specify the required shape or nesting constraints. Given the open schema, more precision is needed.
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 converts structured JSON rows to CSV, with specified use cases (exports, spreadsheets, handoff). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'util_csv_to_json' which does the reverse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions use cases but does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling 'util_csv_to_json' provides a contrast, but no direct guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description indicates a read-only decode operation and mentions 'quickly', suggesting performance, but does not disclose error handling, authentication needs, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. Efficient but could be structured with separate lines for purpose and usage.
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 decode tool, the description lacks parameter guidance, return format, and error behavior. Output schema absent; parameter incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has one generic parameter 'arguments' (object with additionalProperties) with 0% description coverage. Description adds no meaning to the parameter; no explanation of expected keys like 'token' or format.
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?
Clearly states verb 'Decode', resource 'JWT claims', and intended use cases 'auth debugging, routing, and token inspection'. Distinguishes from sibling utilities which do not decode JWTs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage context ('for auth debugging, routing, and token inspection') but provides no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. Lacks guidance on prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral details such as network access requirements, read-only nature, or rate limits, leaving the agent unaware of side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action without extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the ambiguous input schema and absence of output schema, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to correctly structure the invocation or understand the return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the only parameter 'arguments' is an open object with no hints on required keys. The description adds no detail beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of documentation.
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 specifies the verb 'extract' and the resources 'emails, phones, and social links' from a 'page', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like util_links_extract or util_forms_extract.
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 'for outreach, routing, and support' suggests use cases but does not explicitly contrast with similar extraction tools or state when to use this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the two estimation heuristics explicitly, giving agents insight into the algorithm. Without annotations, this carries the behavioral burden. Could mention output format or edge cases, but the core behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, 25 words, front-loaded with purpose and heuristics. No extraneous information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple function but the description omits how to provide input and what the output looks like (no output schema). Agents lack enough context to invoke it correctly without guessing the 'arguments' structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'arguments' is a vague object with no description in schema or tool description. The description does not mention how to input the text. With 0% schema coverage and no param info, this is a critical gap.
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?
Clearly states what the tool does: 'Estimate token count for text.' It specifies the two heuristics (word/4 for GPT-family, char/4 for Claude-family), making the purpose unambiguous. Among many sibling utilities, this one is distinct in function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not explain when to choose GPT vs Claude heuristic, nor provides context for appropriate use. Lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It covers the basic behavior (returns manifest) but does not disclose aspects like authorization requirements, caching, or side effects. For a simple read operation, this is minimally adequate but not enriched.
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: 'Return the agent-readiness manifest, including the full tool list.' Every word adds value, with no redundant information. It is optimal for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no output schema, one parameter), the description conveys the main purpose. However, it fails to explain the 'client' parameter, and with many sibling tools, additional context could help differentiate when to call this manifest tool versus other utilities. It is partially incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter ('client') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain its purpose or effect. The agent receives no help understanding what 'client' means or how it influences the result, making parameter semantics very poor.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns 'the agent-readiness manifest, including the full tool list.' The verb 'Return' and resource 'agent-readiness manifest' are specific. The purpose is distinct from sibling utilities, which are individual actions rather than a manifest listing.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name and description imply it is for obtaining the tool list, but no context about prerequisites or exclusions is provided. Usage is implied but not clarified.
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 return values (name, description, category) and a default behavior. However, with no annotations, more details like error handling or side effects would be beneficial. Adequate for a simple lookup.
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?
Extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant information. All content is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and default behavior. Lacks details on errors or invalid inputs, but acceptable given simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for the 'arguments' parameter. The description adds meaning by mentioning a 'code' param and default behavior, partially compensating. But it doesn't fully explain the structure or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it looks up HTTP status codes and returns name, description, and category. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling utility tools by focusing on a particular resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is that without 'code' param it returns common codes, but no explicit when-not or comparisons to other tools.
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/davidmosiah/delx-agent-utilities'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server