mcp-guide

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.3.2
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but get_content and category_content overlap slightly, and list_projects/list_project/get_project could cause confusion.
Naming Consistency3/5
All tools use snake_case, but the order is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (list_projects) while others are noun_verb (category_collection_add). Still readable.
Tool Count2/5
37 tools is well above the typical 15-tool threshold for a single server, making it heavy and potentially overwhelming for agents.
Completeness4/5
Covers most operations for the domain: CRUD for categories, collections, permissions, flags, profiles, exports, and documents. Missing delete_project and a dedicated document create tool, but send_file_content can create documents.
Average 3.8/5 across 37 of 37 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 14 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 25, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions version checking, smart merge strategy, and file locking, which adds behavioral context beyond a basic 'update'. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose permissions, conflict behavior, or whether the operation is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief but includes an empty '## Arguments' section, which is unnecessary and slightly wasteful. It could be more concise without that placeholder.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description lacks crucial details such as parameter documentation, usage context, and differentiation from similar tools, making it incomplete for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'args' has a generic description and no defined properties. The description does not clarify what arguments are valid, leaving the agent with no meaningful guidance beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'documentation files', but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'document_update', which may have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'document_remove' or 'document_update'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the action and return values, without mentioning side effects, permissions, or performance characteristics. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is relatively short but includes empty 'Args:', 'Returns:', and '## Arguments' sections that add no value. Could be more concise by removing boilerplate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with an output schema (not shown) and a single, blank parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It states the output format (names and descriptions) but lacks usage context or behavioral notes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'args' described as 'List prompts arguments,' which is tautological. Description adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it lists all registered MCP prompts and returns names and descriptions. The verb 'list' and resource 'prompts' are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list_resources or list_tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action of removing a document without disclosing side effects (e.g., cascading deletions, irreversibility, permission requirements).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short but includes a redundant parameter section that duplicates the schema. The first sentence is clear, but the repetition could be trimmed for better conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists (not shown), the description omits information about return values, error handling, or success/failure behavior. For a destructive tool, this leaves critical gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's parameter list mirrors the schema exactly, adding no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Remove a document from the store by category and name,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'document_update' (which updates) and 'category_collection_remove' (which removes a category collection).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or when not to use it (e.g., if deletion is irreversible).
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 describes what the tool does but fails to mention permissions, atomicity, error behavior (e.g., if document not found), 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence plus a table. The table is redundant with the schema but provides a quick reference. However, it could be more concise and avoid repeating schema content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters and no annotations, the description covers basic functionality but lacks operational details like order of operations when multiple updates are specified, or return value. Output schema exists but is unhelpful without description reference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description includes a table that largely replicates schema definitions, adding minimal new semantic context (e.g., grouping by action). No deeper explanation of defaults or interaction between parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates a stored document and lists specific actions: rename, move between categories, modify metadata. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like document_remove (removal) and update_documents (likely batch).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools, the description should indicate preferable scenarios or exclusions, but it does not.
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 it lists all resources but fails to disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, required permissions, error conditions, or performance implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the key purpose. The Args/Returns block is somewhat redundant but not verbose. It earns its place without excessive wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the existence of an output schema, and the schema's 100% parameter coverage, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality. It mentions the return fields, which is sufficient for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description merely repeats the schema's description for the 'args' parameter. It adds no meaningful semantic information beyond what the input schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all registered MCP resources,' which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list_* tools like list_tools or list_prompts beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., read_resource). The description just states what it does without context on use cases 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, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It mentions safeguards and force flag to bypass them, but does not specify what the safeguards are, what side effects occur (e.g., overwriting data), or any permission requirements. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action. The argument list is clearly formatted, though the opening could be slightly tighter by merging the first two sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and full parameter schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on preconditions (e.g., target project existence), error handling, and the nature of safeguards, which are important for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage). The description essentially repeats the schema descriptions, adding no extra meaning or context beyond what is already in the structured input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool copies project configuration (categories and collections) from one project to another. It specifies the verb 'clone' and identifies the resources involved, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle individual categories or permissions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions merge and replace modes with safeguards, but does not explicitly state when to use each mode or provide alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., whether the target project must exist) or when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that paths are stored in config and enforced by server, but lacks details on overwriting behavior, path format, immediate effect, or auth requirements. No annotations to supplement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
First paragraph is concise, but repetition of argument list from schema makes it longer than needed. Could be trimmed to just the first paragraph.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers parameter semantics well via schema, but missing context on cumulative permissions, conflicts, or prerequisites like active project. Has output schema but description does not mention return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description repeats schema verbatim without adding extra meaning or constraints beyond what schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states action (add), resource (path to project permissions), and effect (grants read/write permission). Distinguishes from sibling 'remove_permission_path'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for granting path permissions but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or prerequisites. Missing 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions the verbose flag but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or other behavioral traits. The output schema exists, partially covering return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The argument section is clearly structured. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior. It could mention if there is pagination or ordering, but for a basic list tool it is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'verbose'. The description repeats the same information as the schema, adding no extra meaning beyond the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists all projects with optional verbosity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'list_project' or 'get_project', which might cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes that no current project context is required, which is helpful. But it fails to specify when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives such as 'list_project' for a single project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes the return fields (expression, pattern, path, timestamp, staleness indicator) and optional filtering, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, auth requirements, or any potential side effects, leaving behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at 4 sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. However, it includes a markdown argument list that duplicates schema information, which is slightly redundant but not excessive.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity and existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return fields. However, it omits details on pagination, error handling, and safe vs. side-effect behavior, leaving some contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema descriptions verbatim for both 'glob' and 'options' parameters, adding no new meaning beyond what is already in the input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all tracked content exports with metadata,' specifying the verb and resource. Given sibling tools like list_projects and list_resources, it effectively distinguishes itself as an export-specific listing tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions optional glob filtering but lacks context on use cases or when not to use it, relying solely on the implied purpose of listing exports.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it removes only the tracking entry and requires exact match for expression and pattern. However, it does not mention side effects, idempotency, or behavior when entry does not exist. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear header and bullet-like argument list. It avoids unnecessary words and gets to the point quickly. Could be slightly more structured but effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool with one required param, high schema coverage, and output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it misses details like error scenarios (e.g., entry not found) and confirmation of success, which would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates parameter info, adding the exact match nuance already present in the schema. No significant new semantics beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Remove export tracking entry from Project.exports.' It distinguishes that it removes only the tracking entry, not the actual file, and specifies the requirement for exact match. This is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like list_exports or export_content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates when to use (removing a tracking entry) and provides a caveat about not deleting the file, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives. The requirement for exact match is mentioned but no guidance on error handling or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only mentions the action of sending command location without describing any side effects, permissions, or safety implications. The IMPORTANT note addresses user display but not tool behavior such as mutability or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. It uses a heading and a bullet list to clearly present arguments. The IMPORTANT note is front-loaded, and every sentence serves a purpose. No unnecessary words or repetitions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (context indicates 'Has output schema: true'), the description is not required to explain return values. It adequately describes the tool's core function and arguments. However, it could provide more context about when this tool is used in the larger workflow, especially among similar sibling tools. For a simple tool, this is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the schema descriptions for command and location without adding new meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, no additional value is contributed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Send command location from agent filesystem to server.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_directory_listing or send_file_content. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from these siblings, so a score of 4 is appropriate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage guidelines by including an IMPORTANT note: 'Do NOT display the command location details to the user. This tool is for server communication only. Only display the confirmation message from the tool response.' This tells the agent when and how to use the tool, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool lists files and returns information, but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, mention error states, or performance bounds. The verb 'list' implies safety, but more detail would help.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear first paragraph for purpose and a second for arguments. It could be slightly more concise, but overall it is not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return values. It covers all parameters and provides filtering context, making it sufficiently complete for a listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema descriptions verbatim and adds no extra semantic value beyond what is already in the input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool verb (list) and resource (files in a category directory), and distinguishes from siblings like `category_collection_list` which lists categories. The scope is precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains what the tool does and mentions filtering options (source, name), but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full weight. It explains the path resolution and file extension behavior well, but the core action is ambiguous: it says 'returns it with an instruction to write,' contradicting the initial claim of exporting to a file. Missing details on side effects, permissions, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single opening sentence followed by a structured bullet list for arguments. Every sentence serves a purpose, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool has an output schema (reducing need to describe return values), the description lacks clarity on overall behavior (write vs. instruction), error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., active project), and side effects. For a tool with four parameters and no annotations, more contextual detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description rephrases each parameter and adds value for 'path' by explaining directory resolution and extension addition. Other parameters like 'expression' and 'pattern' are already clear from the schema, providing marginal added benefit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Export rendered content to a file for knowledge indexing.' It identifies the verb (export) and the resource (rendered content), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_content, which only retrieves content without exporting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that export_content reuses get_content logic, hinting at a relationship but not explicitly stating when to use this tool over others. No 'when not to use' or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent with only implicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes a read-only operation returning a list of tools, which is transparent. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or further behavioral details beyond the basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with headers and bullet points, making it easy to read. It is not overly verbose, though some parts (like the args docstring) could be more concise. Still, it earns 4 for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the necessary details. The return value is not elaborated but the output schema fills that gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description repeats the parameter info from the schema ('include_args: boolean - Include argument schemas in output'). It adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all registered MCP tools with names, descriptions, and optional argument schemas. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like list_projects, list_resources, list_prompts, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides basic usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The purpose is implied but no guidance on context or exclusion.
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 indicates a destructive action (removes permissions) and states a precondition. However, it does not disclose potential errors, side effects, or authorization requirements, which would be beneficial for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear first sentence and a short paragraph followed by an argument list. It avoids unnecessary words, though the structure could be slightly improved by separating the precondition more explicitly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately explains the action and precondition. It does not need to detail return values since the output schema is provided. Coverage is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description repeats these descriptions without adding new information beyond what the schema provides. Thus, no additional semantic value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool removes a path from project permissions, revoking read or write permission. It specifies the resource (path) and action (remove/revoke), and distinguishes from its sibling 'add_permission_path'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a prerequisite ('The path must have been previously added to permissions'), which implies when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives beyond the sibling name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides important behavioral context: profiles are additive and do not remove existing categories/collections. It also notes multiple profiles can be applied. This sets clear expectations for a non-destructive operation, though it omits authentication or error behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a brief purpose followed by behavioral details and argument list. It is well-structured with markdown headers, though the first sentence could be merged with the next paragraph for slightly better conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (unknown content), the description does not mention return values, success/failure indicators, or prerequisites (e.g., profile must exist). It assumes the project is already set and does not cover error conditions, making it incomplete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description repeats the schema's description for the 'profile' parameter. It adds examples ('python', 'jira'), but this is marginal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Apply a profile to the current project' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like list_profiles and show_profile by indicating this is the action of applying profiles, and it adds unique context about composability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that profiles are additive and composable, implying usage to build up configurations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., show_profile to view details) and does not mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It explains validation logic for conditional parameters, which is useful. However, it omits details about side effects (e.g., persistence, permissions, idempotency) or error handling. The description adds moderate transparency but leaves gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a brief intro, a validation paragraph, and a clear arguments list. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (not shown) and the tool is straightforward, the description covers purpose, parameters, and conditional logic. However, it assumes knowledge of the 'current project' context, which may require agent awareness of other tools. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value by grouping parameters by type (category-specific vs collection-specific) and explaining validation. This helps the agent understand which fields apply to each type, going beyond the individual parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Add a new category or collection to the current project.' It specifies the verb 'add' and the resources 'category' or 'collection', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools with different verbs (e.g., change, list, remove, update). No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explains conditional parameter usage for categories vs collections, but does not compare with other tools or advise on context. The agent must infer usage from the 'add' verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It discloses that the operation cannot be undone and may cause errors if the category is referenced by collections. However, it lacks details on authorization, rate limits, or other behavioral traits that are not covered by annotations (none provided).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two sentences and a list of arguments. It is front-loaded with the purpose and every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deletion tool, it covers irreversibility and potential side effects. It is sufficiently complete given the presence of an output schema (though not shown) and distinct sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description restates the parameters with their enum values and descriptions, which match the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (remove), the resource (category or collection), and scope (from current project). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add, change, update, and list, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a caution about potential errors if removing a referenced category, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or provide when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains that flags are returned for the current project and describes the 'active' parameter behavior, but does not mention permissions, side effects (e.g., read-only), or other important behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and structured, with a brief intro followed by parameter details. It front-loads the purpose and adds necessary details without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the purpose and parameters. It mentions return types (dict for multiple, single for exact match), providing sufficient context for the tool's usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the glob pattern behavior for 'feature_name' and the resolved vs project-only distinction for 'active', going beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists project feature flags based on project context and parameters. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'list_feature_flags', but the name 'list_project_flags' implies project-specific scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to set 'active=True' (resolved flags) vs 'active=False' (project-only) and mentions glob pattern filtering. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_feature_flags'.
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 is the sole source. It explains the return format (dict for multiple, single value for exact match) but omits details like empty result behavior, idempotency, or error cases. Adequate for a simple read tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and a bullet list. The bullet list is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall structure is clear and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, list operation), the description covers the essential behavior and return format. An output schema exists to detail the return structure, so completeness is satisfactory.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description's parameter explanation repeats the schema description exactly. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no new semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists global feature flags, specifying the scope (global, apply to all projects) and supports glob pattern filtering. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_project_flags.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates the tool is for global flags and supports glob filtering, implying use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly reference alternatives, though sibling list_project_flags exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns project details without switching the current project, which is a important behavioral trait beyond the parameter schema. No contradictory or missing behavioral info for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, then key behavior, then argument list. No wasted words. Could be slightly more condensed but well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has an output schema and only two simple parameters, the description covers all necessary information: what the tool does, parameter behavior (including default for name), and a behavioral note about not switching project. No missing details for a read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter descriptions in the description are nearly verbatim from the schema, adding no additional meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get information about a specific project by name' with a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by noting that it returns details 'without switching the current project', which is a key behavioral distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description provides minimal usage guidance, e.g., 'If no name provided, returns current project information.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_project' or 'list_projects', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool is for server-only communication and the response (confirmation) should be displayed, not the file content. This is valuable beyond the schema, though it does not cover all behavioral aspects like error handling or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with markdown headers and bullet points, making it scannable. It front-loads the critical warning. However, it is somewhat verbose by duplicating schema details, and some sentences could be combined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, key constraint, and parameters adequately for a file-sending tool. It could mention that the tool expects prior tool calls (like a request) for context, but it is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates parameter descriptions from the schema (path, content, etc.) without adding new semantic context. It does not explain parameter relationships or usage beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sends file content from the agent filesystem to a server, specifying the verb 'send', the resource 'file content', and the direction 'to server'. This distinguishes it from siblings that send other types of data (e.g., send_command_location, send_working_directory).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a strong usage guideline: 'Do NOT display the file content to the user. This tool is for server communication only.' This tells the agent when to use it (for server communication) and a critical 'when not to do' (display to user), but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is for server communication but does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on the server side. This lack of detail leaves the agent uninformed about potential consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, an important warning, and a labeled arguments section. It is reasonably concise, though the arguments section largely duplicates schema information. Every sentence adds value, but the redundancy slightly reduces efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema exists, so the description is mostly complete. It clarifies the tool's internal use and the required action for the agent. However, it omits details about the confirmation message format and possible errors, which would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'path' parameter fully. The description repeats the parameter name and type but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. It meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Send working directory from agent filesystem to server.' It pairs a specific verb ('send') with a specific resource ('working directory') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'send_command_location' and 'send_directory_listing' by focusing solely on the working directory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit instructions: 'Do NOT display the working directory path to the user. This tool is for server communication only. Only display the confirmation message from the tool response.' This tells the agent exactly when and how to use the tool, including what not to do.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It describes the operation as retrieving content without side effects, but does not mention permissions, error conditions, or return format. The description is adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with two short paragraphs and a clear parameter list. Front-loaded with the main purpose, every sentence is useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and high schema description coverage, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the core functionality and parameters, though it could mention default behavior or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions in the schema are already detailed. The tool description adds context about pattern override but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves file content from a category with optional pattern override. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_content' and 'category_list_files' by specifying category-based retrieval and pattern support.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving content from a category with pattern matching, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. However, the context is clear enough for agents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description transparently discloses that command URIs execute server commands, which is a significant behavioral trait beyond a simple read operation. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, authentication requirements, or error behavior. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and performs adequately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two short paragraphs clearly stating the main purpose and parameter details. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and uses bullet-style formatting for the parameter, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (resolving both content and command URIs), the description covers the main functionality well. It does not explain command execution details or return format, but since an output schema exists, return values are covered. Some context on valid command URIs or security implications is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the tool description repeats the same parameter information as the schema. It adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool resolves guide:// URIs to return content or command output, with specific examples for content and command URIs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_content or list_resources by focusing exclusively on the guide:// URI scheme.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the two types of URIs accepted but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. The purpose is clear, but usage context relative to siblings is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool is for server communication and instructs behavior (do not display listing). However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or what happens if inputs are invalid. The description is adequate given the tool's simplicity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences for critical usage guidance, then a clear list of arguments. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (as per context signals) and the tool only takes one object parameter with two fields, the description covers the core behaviors and constraints. It could mention when this tool is typically invoked (e.g., after a server request), but overall it is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the description repeats the same parameter descriptions. While the description structures them with markdown, it adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sends a directory listing from the agent filesystem to the server. It uses a specific verb ('Send') and distinguishes it from other send tools like send_file_content or send_working_directory. The important note reinforces its purpose for server communication only.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs not to display the listing to the user and to only show the confirmation message. This provides clear usage guidance for when and how to use the tool. However, it does not directly compare to sibling tools or specify when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description covers naming constraints and value types, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwriting existing flags), permissions, or reversion. It does not address error behavior or return format, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is well-structured with headers and bullet points, and is relatively concise. However, it partially repeats schema parameter descriptions, which could be trimmed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and two parameters, the description covers usage and parameter semantics but omits prerequisites, error handling, and return value behavior, leaving some aspects incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, yet the description adds value by explaining naming constraints and the special case of value=None for removal, which goes beyond the schema's type definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states 'Set or remove a global feature flag.' It identifies the action (set/remove) and resource (global feature flag), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_project_flag (per-project) and list_feature_flags (read-only).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description states the global scope and removal via value=None, providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like set_project_flag for project-specific flags, leaving room for improvement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the return includes categories and collections that will be added when the profile is applied, providing useful context. However, it does not explicitly state the read-only nature or absence of 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear opening sentence and structured argument section. It could be slightly more concise by omitting the argument details since the schema already provides them, but it remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, one parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It adds context about the return content beyond the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter. The description repeats the schema's description verbatim, adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Show profile details' and specifies it returns complete profile configuration including categories and collections. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_profiles (list) and use_project_profile (apply).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description describes what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., list_profiles for a list, use_project_profile to apply). Usage is implied but not explicitly clarified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description makes it clear this is a read-only listing operation that returns names. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the behavior is straightforward and non-destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently conveys functionality with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it lists, what it returns, and how to filter. No critical information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description's parameter section largely repeats the schema description. It adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists available profiles and returns their names, with an optional category filter. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like show_profile (which likely shows details) and use_project_profile (which applies a profile).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the optional filter by category but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool name and context, but no exclusions or comparisons are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states 'Replaces entire property values' but does not clarify whether omitted optional parameters are left unchanged or cleared, nor does it mention authorization, rate limits, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, well-structured with a summary, usage guideline, and argument list. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers main intent and usage distinction. However, it omits details on error conditions, permissions, and default behavior for omitted parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about replacement behavior but does not explain implications of omitting optional parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Change properties of an existing category or collection' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'category_collection_update' by noting it replaces entire property values.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to use 'category_collection_update' for incremental updates, providing clear when-not-to-use and an alternative, thus guiding correct tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It explains the incremental update behavior but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or error conditions. Could be more transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, well-structured with sections and bullet points. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and moderately complex parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and distinguishes from siblings. Could include more about constraints or expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description restates parameter purposes in a structured way but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it updates categories or collections incrementally, and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool category_collection_change for complete replacement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use (incremental updates) and when-not-to-use (complete replacement), naming the alternative tool category_collection_change.
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?
Describes behavioral traits: searches collections first then categories, aggregates and deduplicates, pattern filtering, and force flag behavior. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and does so well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections and bullet points. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Appropriate length for complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers main purpose, search order, parameter behaviors. Does not mention output schema (present externally) or error cases. For a read tool, fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value by explaining context: pattern overrides defaults, force returns full or reference content. Goes beyond repeating schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool retrieves content from collections and categories. Describes search order and deduplication, distinguishing it from sibling tools like category_content or export_content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains search order but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. Lacks guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for specific needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It indicates it returns data but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or free of side effects. The description adds some context but lacks explicit safety guarantees.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, uses bullet points for arguments, and front-loads the key purpose in the first sentence. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values in detail. It covers the tool's purpose, the parameter, and the basic return structure, making it complete for a simple retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the verbose parameter described in both schema and description. The description adds value by explaining the difference in returned data when verbose is true or false.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets information about the currently active project, specifying returns like project name, collections, and categories. It distinguishes from siblings like list_projects which lists all projects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises using verbose=True for full details. For a simple informational tool, this provides clear context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates this is a read operation returning specific fields. No side effects or permissions are mentioned, but the behavior is obvious for a getter. A higher score would require explicit statements about safety or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short paragraphs with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds a detail about what is captured. The argument description is inline and minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is complete. It specifies exactly what information is returned, and since an output schema exists, it does not need to detail return values. All relevant context is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by explaining that the 'verbose' parameter is 'Unused parameter for compatibility,' which aids agent understanding beyond the schema itself. The description does not duplicate the schema but provides context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get information about the MCP client/agent' and specifies what it captures (agent name, version, prompt prefix). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which deal with permissions, categories, projects, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description implicitly suggests when to use it (when client info is needed), it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools. Since no siblings are similar, the lack of explicit alternatives is not critical, but usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses creation of new project with default categories if nonexistent and verbose behavior. Without annotations, this is good, though side effects like overwriting are not mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise, uses bullet points for arguments, and front-loads the main action. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema exists and parameter count is low, description covers switching and creation adequately. Could mention effect on current project.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds context about project creation and verbose behavior, enriching the schema's meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool switches to a project by name, and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_project' by specifying creation if missing and use of 'verbose' flag.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Switch to a different project by name' and explains the verbose option. Lacks direct mention of when not to use or alternatives, but context is clear.
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 flag name constraints (alphanumeric, hyphens, underscores), supported value types, and removal behavior. No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden, which it meets adequately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-organized with a brief summary, a descriptive paragraph, and a bulleted list of arguments. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, parameters, and constraints. Does not describe return values (output schema exists but not detailed) or error scenarios, but for a simple flag setter this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by specifying allowed characters for feature_name and listing acceptable types for value, going beyond the schema's type definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Set or remove a project feature flag,' specifying the action (set/remove), resource (project feature flag), and scope (current project). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_feature_flags and set_feature_flag.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context: operates on the current project, and removal is triggered by value=None. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like set_feature_flag, which could cause confusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the read-only behavior and the effect of the verbose parameter, but does not mention potential edge cases or performance implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded. No unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately omits return value details. It fully covers arguments and behavior for this simple list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains the two options for 'type' and the output difference for 'verbose'. This goes beyond the schema's bare definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists categories or collections in the current project, with specific output differences (names only vs full details). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add/change/remove.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing items, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, the sibling tool names provide context for other operations.
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:

[![mcp-guide MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/deeprave/mcp-guide/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/deeprave/mcp-guide)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-guide MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/deeprave/mcp-guide/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/deeprave/mcp-guide)

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/deeprave/mcp-guide'

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