Meilisearch MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources and actions, such as document management, index operations, settings, and tasks. However, some overlap exists between similar tools like get-document/get-documents and delete-document/delete-documents, which could cause minor confusion, though descriptions clarify their singular vs. plural focus.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb-noun pattern with hyphens throughout, such as add-documents, delete-index, get-settings, and update-ranking-rules. This uniformity makes the set predictable and easy to navigate, with no deviations in style or structure.
Tool Count2/5
With 68 tools, the count is excessive for a search server, making it overwhelming and heavy for agents to manage. While Meilisearch has many features, this large number suggests poor scoping, as many tools could be consolidated or omitted without losing functionality.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of Meilisearch's domain, including full CRUD for documents and indexes, detailed settings management, task handling, search operations, and system information. No obvious gaps exist; agents can perform all core workflows without dead ends.
Average 2.8/5 across 68 of 68 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- 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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or has any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this minimal description is inadequate.
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 extremely concise with just one sentence. While this could be seen as efficient, it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise. However, it doesn't waste words or have structural issues, so it earns a decent score for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool ecosystem (many sibling tools), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'filterable attributes' are, what format they return in, or how this tool fits into the broader Meilisearch API context. The agent would struggle to use this effectively.
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%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' clearly documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the filterable attributes setting' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get-filterable-attributes' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'filterable attributes' are, what resource they belong to, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'get-searchable-attributes' or 'get-sortable-attributes'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when to choose this over related tools like 'get-settings' or 'update-filterable-attributes'. With many sibling tools available, this lack of differentiation is problematic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description reveals nothing about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, side effects, or what happens to existing settings. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is critically insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action. While lacking in content, it's structurally optimal for its length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what typo tolerance is, what values are acceptable, what the operation returns, or any behavioral context. The agent cannot understand how to use this tool correctly based on this description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (indexUid and value). The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, format expectations, or constraints beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage without description enhancement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the typo tolerance setting' is a tautology that restates the tool name. While it identifies the resource ('typo tolerance setting'), it lacks specificity about what this setting controls or what 'update' entails. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-typo-tolerance' or 'reset-typo-tolerance' beyond the verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or how it differs from related tools like 'reset-typo-tolerance' or 'get-typo-tolerance'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without any information on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or response format. For a read operation, it fails to clarify if it's safe, what data it returns, or any constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient behavioral understanding.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns configuration data. It does not explain what sortable attributes are, the format of the response, or how this tool fits into broader settings management. For a read operation with no structured support, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
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% description coverage, with the single parameter 'indexUid' clearly documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics without needing extra explanation from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the sortable attributes setting' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'sortable attributes setting' but lacks detail on what sortable attributes are or how they differ from other attribute types like filterable or searchable attributes, which are available as sibling tools. This provides basic purpose but fails to distinguish meaningfully from related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'get-filterable-attributes' or 'get-searchable-attributes', nor does it explain the context for retrieving sortable attributes specifically. Without any usage context or exclusions, the agent has no basis for selecting this tool appropriately among similar options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states it's an update operation without explaining what 'update' means in this context - whether it replaces all filterable attributes, merges with existing ones, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action. While under-specified, what's present is efficiently structured without redundancy.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what filterable attributes are, what format the 'value' parameter should be in beyond 'JSON value', what happens during the update, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of updating a search index setting and the lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more context.
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%, with both parameters (indexUid and value) having clear descriptions in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful information about parameters beyond what's already documented in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the filterable attributes setting' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update-filterable-attributes'. It specifies the verb 'update' and resource 'filterable attributes setting', but lacks specificity about what filterable attributes are or what this operation actually does. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'reset-filterable-attributes' or 'get-filterable-attributes'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this should be used instead of resetting filterable attributes, or what happens to existing settings. With multiple sibling tools for managing filterable attributes (get, update, reset), the lack of differentiation is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'update' which implies a mutation/write operation, but provides no information about permissions required, whether changes are immediate or asynchronous, error conditions, or what happens to existing settings. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 at just 5 words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it's under-specified in terms of content, it doesn't waste words or include redundant information. Every word serves a purpose in the minimal description provided.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what sortable attributes are, what format the JSON value should take, whether the operation is synchronous, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool that modifies index settings in a system with many configuration options, more context 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%, with both parameters (indexUid, value) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the sortable attributes setting' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It specifies the verb 'update' and resource 'sortable attributes setting', but lacks specificity about what sortable attributes are or what this operation actually does. Compared to siblings like 'get-sortable-attributes' or 'reset-sortable-attributes', it doesn't clearly differentiate beyond the basic action verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), when-not-to-use scenarios, or direct alternatives like 'reset-sortable-attributes' for clearing settings. With many sibling tools for managing index settings, this absence of contextual guidance is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, how it affects search behavior, whether changes are immediate or asynchronous, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool, this lack of transparency is critical.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of updating a search configuration setting, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what stop words are, how they impact search, what the expected JSON format is, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with no behavioral context, this is inadequate.
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% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('indexUid' and 'value'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'stop words' are, what format the JSON value should take, or provide examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the stop words setting' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update-stop-words' with minimal elaboration. It identifies the action ('update') and resource ('stop words setting'), but lacks specificity about what stop words are, what this setting controls, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get-stop-words' or 'reset-stop-words'. The purpose is vague beyond the obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), contrast with sibling tools (e.g., 'reset-stop-words' for clearing vs. 'update-stop-words' for setting), or specify appropriate contexts (e.g., during search configuration). This leaves the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but fails to detail aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of the returned setting. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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, concise sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded critical details, such as clarifying what 'distinct attribute' means in this context, reducing its effectiveness despite brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of managing index settings and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'distinct attribute setting' is, how it's used, or what the return value looks like, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without external knowledge.
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% description coverage, with 'indexUid' clearly documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it does not mention parameters at all. According to guidelines, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high (>80%).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the distinct attribute setting' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies a verb ('Get') and resource ('distinct attribute setting'), but lacks specificity about what this setting entails or how it differs from related tools like 'reset-distinct-attribute' or 'update-distinct-attribute'.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get-settings' (which might include this attribute) or 'reset-distinct-attribute', leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, requires permissions, returns structured data, or has side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate as it misses key behavioral details like response format or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's action without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a configuration retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the pagination setting includes (e.g., page size, limits) or the return format, leaving gaps in understanding how to interpret results or handle errors.
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 adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'indexUid'. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the schema already documents the parameter adequately without needing extra details from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the pagination setting' restates the tool name 'get-pagination' almost verbatim, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'pagination setting' but lacks specificity about what 'pagination setting' entails (e.g., configuration, limits, or behavior) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'reset-pagination' or 'update-pagination'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention related tools like 'reset-pagination' or 'update-pagination', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, such as checking settings before modification or after a reset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what the effect is on existing data, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits. It mentions a 'setting' but doesn't explain what that entails. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though this conciseness comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. Every word earns its place, even if the content is insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'distinct attribute' is, what the update does, potential side effects, or return values. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and correct usage is lacking, especially compared to sibling tools that have more descriptive names like 'update-settings'.
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%, with both parameters ('indexUid' and 'value') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters—it doesn't clarify what 'distinct attribute' means, what format 'value' should take beyond 'JSON value', or how this interacts with the index. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the distinct attribute setting' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'update-distinct-attribute' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what a 'distinct attribute' is, what resource it modifies, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get-distinct-attribute' or 'reset-distinct-attribute'. The purpose remains vague despite the clear verb 'update'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'reset-distinct-attribute' (which likely clears the setting) or 'get-distinct-attribute' (which retrieves it). Without any usage context, the agent lacks direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, whether it overwrites or merges with existing synonyms, what format the JSON value should be in, whether changes are immediate or asynchronous, or what happens on error. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 at just 4 words. While this brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions, the text itself contains no wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action. Every word ('Update', 'the', 'synonyms', 'setting') serves a basic grammatical purpose, making it structurally efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' means operationally, what the JSON value format should be, whether the operation is synchronous or returns a task ID (common in this sibling tool context), or what happens on success/failure. For a tool that modifies search index settings, this minimal description leaves critical 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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema (indexUid as 'Unique identifier of the index', value as 'JSON value for the setting'). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the synonyms setting' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update-synonyms'. It doesn't specify what resource is being updated (index synonyms), what 'update' entails (replace, modify, add?), or how this differs from sibling tools like 'get-synonyms' or 'reset-synonyms'. The purpose is minimally stated but lacks specificity and differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is zero guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), when this should be used instead of 'reset-synonyms', or what happens if synonyms are already configured. With multiple sibling tools related to synonyms (get-synonyms, reset-synonyms), this lack of differentiation is problematic.
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. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether it returns current or default settings, or what format the response takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it's under-specified in terms of content, it's perfectly efficient in form - every word serves a purpose.
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?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is incomplete. The agent knows it retrieves 'faceting setting' for an index but doesn't know what faceting settings are, what format they come in, whether this is a read-only operation, or what the typical use cases are. Given the complexity implied by having both 'get-faceting' and 'update-faceting' tools, more context would be helpful.
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% (the single parameter 'indexUid' is fully documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'), so the baseline score is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides - it doesn't explain why an indexUid is needed or how faceting settings relate to specific indexes.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the faceting setting' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get-faceting'. It provides a verb ('Get') and resource ('faceting setting'), but doesn't specify what a 'faceting setting' actually is or what this operation retrieves. Compared to siblings like 'get-document' or 'get-settings', it doesn't clearly distinguish its specific purpose beyond the name.
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. There's no mention of when faceting settings would be needed, what prerequisites might exist, or how this differs from related tools like 'update-faceting' or 'reset-faceting'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone with no contextual help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' implying a read operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, returns a list or object, has side effects, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate—it lacks essential context about how the tool behaves beyond the basic verb.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'searchable attributes' are, what the return value looks like, or how this fits into broader workflows (e.g., search configuration). For a tool in a family of similar settings tools, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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% description coverage, with 'indexUid' clearly documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the searchable attributes setting' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'get-searchable-attributes' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'searchable attributes' are in this context (e.g., fields in a search index), nor does it distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get-filterable-attributes' or 'get-sortable-attributes' beyond the obvious name difference.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), contrast with sibling tools like 'update-searchable-attributes' or 'reset-searchable-attributes', or explain typical use cases (e.g., configuring search behavior). This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify if this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get the stop words setting', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be under-specified, it is not verbose or poorly structured, earning full marks for brevity and clarity within its limited scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of managing stop words in a search index context, the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools like 'update-stop-words' and 'reset-stop-words', it fails to explain what stop words are, how the setting is returned, or its role in the system. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
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% description coverage, with 'indexUid' clearly documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, as it mentions no parameters. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the stop words setting' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'get-stop-words' with minimal elaboration. While it indicates the action (get) and resource (stop words setting), it lacks specificity about what 'stop words' are in this context or what the 'setting' entails, making it vague compared to more detailed descriptions.
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. Given sibling tools like 'update-stop-words', 'reset-stop-words', and 'get-settings', there is no indication of whether this tool retrieves a subset or full configuration, or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get the synonyms setting' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
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 a single, straightforward sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, though it lacks depth. This meets the criteria for conciseness perfectly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple single-parameter input, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'synonyms setting' entails (e.g., a configuration object or list), potential error conditions, or return format. For a tool in a context with many sibling operations, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional meaning about this parameter (e.g., format examples or where to find it). With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the synonyms setting' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'get-synonyms' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'synonyms setting' but lacks specificity about what this entails (e.g., retrieving configuration, list of synonym pairs, or status). Compared to siblings like 'update-synonyms' or 'reset-synonyms', it doesn't clearly differentiate its read-only nature beyond the verb 'Get'.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), contrast with siblings like 'update-synonyms' or 'reset-synonyms', or indicate scenarios for usage (e.g., checking current configuration before making changes). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if cancellation is reversible, requires permissions, affects system state, or has side effects (e.g., interrupting processes). For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more specific to improve utility without losing 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?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, outcomes, error handling, and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured data, making it inadequate for safe agent use.
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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Statuses of tasks to cancel'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filter-based usage, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Cancel tasks based on provided filters' states the action (cancel) and resource (tasks), but it's vague about scope and lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'delete-tasks' or 'get-tasks'. It doesn't specify whether this cancels queued tasks, running tasks, or both, which limits clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., task status), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'delete-tasks' or 'wait-for-task', leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, what happens if no filters match, or what the response looks like. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 extremely concise - a single 6-word sentence. While efficient, it may be too brief given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, destructive operation). Every word earns its place, but more context might be warranted.
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?
For a destructive tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'tasks' are, doesn't warn about permanence, doesn't describe response format, and doesn't provide usage context. The combination of complexity and lack of structured documentation demands more from the description.
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 all 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond 'based on provided filters', which is already implied by the parameter structure. With complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete tasks based on provided filters' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (tasks), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete-documents' or 'delete-index'. It lacks specificity about what 'tasks' are in this context.
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. With sibling tools like 'cancel-tasks', 'delete-documents', and 'delete-index', there's no indication of when this bulk deletion tool is appropriate versus those other deletion operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'searching' but does not clarify if this is a read-only operation, what the output format might be, or any performance considerations like rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Search for facet values'), though it could be more structured by explicitly mentioning parameters or context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what facet values are, how results are returned, or any error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (indexUid, facetName, facetQuery, filter). The description adds no additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'facetQuery' differs from regular queries. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search for facet values matching specific criteria' states a purpose (searching facet values) but is vague about what 'facet values' are and how this differs from general search tools like 'search' or 'multi-search' in the sibling list. It uses a specific verb ('Search') but lacks clarity on the resource scope beyond 'facet values'.
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 like 'search' or 'multi-search', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for searching facet values but leaves the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get documents' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on errors. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, missing necessary details for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or how it fits among many sibling tools. For a retrieval tool in a search system, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.
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%, with clear documentation for all 5 parameters (e.g., indexUid, limit, offset). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or typical use cases. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get documents from a Meilisearch index' states the action (get) and resource (documents) but is vague about scope and behavior. It doesn't specify whether this retrieves all documents, a subset, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'search' or 'get-document'. The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks specificity for differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search', 'get-document', or 'list-indexes'. The description implies retrieval but doesn't specify use cases such as batch fetching, pagination, or filtering scenarios. Without context, an agent might misuse it where other tools are more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'gets information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the taskUid doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a task management system.
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 a single, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of task-related operations (with many sibling tools), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how errors are handled, or how it fits into the broader context of task management, making it inadequate for full understanding.
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%, with the parameter 'taskUid' documented as 'Unique identifier of the task.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain the format, range, or source of taskUid. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get information about a specific task' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('task'), but it's vague about what information is retrieved. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-tasks' (which lists multiple tasks) but doesn't specify how it differs from 'get-tasks' (plural) or what makes a task 'specific' beyond the parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-tasks' or 'list-tasks' is provided. The description implies usage for a single task via the parameter, but it doesn't clarify prerequisites, error conditions, or when other tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing key behaviors: it doesn't mention that this is a blocking/polling operation (implied by parameters), potential side effects (e.g., resource consumption), timeout handling, or what happens on completion/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves waiting and state changes.
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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise. However, it's front-loaded but overly brief, potentially omitting necessary context for effective use, which slightly reduces its utility despite efficient structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving asynchronous task monitoring), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return value (e.g., task status, result, or error), behavioral nuances like polling mechanics, or interaction with sibling tools, leaving the agent under-informed for proper invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (taskUid, timeoutMs, intervalMs) with descriptions and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how polling works or default behaviors, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Wait for a specific task to complete' clearly states the action (wait) and target (task), but it's vague about what 'wait' entails (e.g., polling, blocking) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get-task' or 'list-tasks'. It specifies the resource (task) but lacks operational details, making it minimally adequate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get-task' (which might check status without waiting) or 'list-tasks'. The description implies usage after initiating a task, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, error conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent with little contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does at a high level ('get'), but doesn't describe what 'displayed attributes' are, whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, what the return format looks like, or any error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple getter tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'displayed attributes' are in this system, what the return value contains, or how this differs from related settings tools. For a tool that presumably returns configuration data, more context about the returned data structure and purpose would be helpful.
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% description coverage, with the single parameter 'indexUid' clearly documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the displayed attributes setting' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (displayed attributes setting), but it's vague about what 'displayed attributes' actually means in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get-searchable-attributes' or 'get-filterable-attributes' beyond the specific setting name.
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. There's no mention of prerequisites, related operations (like 'update-displayed-attributes' or 'reset-displayed-attributes'), or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get'), implying a read operation, but doesn't add context like authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'ranking rules' entail. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'ranking rules' are, the format of the return value, or any behavioral context, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's use without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the single parameter 'indexUid'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'ranking rules' are or how they relate to the index. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the ranking rules setting' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('ranking rules setting'), which is a specific action. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get-settings' or 'get-sortable-attributes', which also retrieve settings, leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this is appropriate compared to other 'get-' tools, or any contextual constraints, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'from' parameters), whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core function without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, pagination behavior, or how filtering interacts with sibling tools. For a data retrieval tool with multiple filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, merely stating 'optional filtering' which is already clear from the parameter names. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get information about tasks with optional filtering' states the basic purpose (retrieving task data) but is vague about scope and resource. It doesn't specify whether this retrieves all tasks, recent tasks, or tasks from specific contexts, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-task' (singular) or 'list-tasks' which might serve similar purposes.
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. With siblings like 'get-task' (singular), 'list-tasks', and 'cancel-tasks', there's no indication of when filtering is needed, whether this is for bulk operations, or any prerequisites. Usage is implied only through the mention of 'optional filtering'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the index doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about operational behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Get the typo tolerance setting'. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple read operation) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the typo tolerance setting entails, the return format, or error conditions. For a tool with no structured output documentation, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
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% description coverage, with indexUid clearly documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond this. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the typo tolerance setting' clearly states the action (get) and resource (typo tolerance setting), which is adequate. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'get-*' siblings like get-settings or get-searchable-attributes, leaving ambiguity about scope. It's not tautological but remains somewhat vague about what specifically is retrieved.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or comparisons to siblings like get-settings (which might include typo tolerance) or update-typo-tolerance. This leaves the agent without explicit direction on usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (pagination, ordering), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no filters are applied. 'List tasks' implies safe reading, but no behavioral details are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a list operation and front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or how filtering works in practice. The agent lacks context about what 'tasks' represent in this system despite the rich parameter 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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional filtering' which aligns with the schema's optional parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding meaningful parameter context beyond what's already structured.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List tasks with optional filtering' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('tasks'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get-tasks' or 'get-task'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about what kind of tasks or system context.
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 like 'get-tasks' or 'get-task'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Update' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is insufficient. It lacks context on what 'displayed attributes' are, how updates behave, or what to expect in return, making it hard for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('indexUid' and 'value'). The description adds no meaning beyond this, such as explaining what 'value' should contain (e.g., JSON format details) or how it affects displayed attributes. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Update') and the resource ('displayed attributes setting'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it's vague about what 'displayed attributes' are or what this setting controls, and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-displayed-attributes' or 'reset-displayed-attributes' beyond the verb.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'reset-displayed-attributes' or 'get-displayed-attributes', leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'update' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. No unnecessary words or redundancy are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what faceting is, how the update affects search behavior, error handling, or response format. This leaves the agent under-informed for safe and effective use.
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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (indexUid as unique identifier, value as JSON value). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'faceting setting' entails or the expected JSON structure. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the faceting setting' clearly states the action (update) and target (faceting setting), but it's vague about what 'faceting setting' entails. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-faceting' and 'reset-faceting' by specifying 'update', but doesn't clarify what faceting is or its scope compared to similar tools like 'update-filterable-attributes'.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), exclusions, or when to choose this over related tools like 'update-settings' or 'reset-faceting'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'update', implying a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing settings. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral context, usage guidelines, and what the tool returns, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (indexUid and value). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'pagination setting' entails or the format of the JSON value. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the pagination setting' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (pagination setting), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what pagination setting is being updated or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get-pagination' or 'reset-pagination', making it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reset-pagination' or 'get-pagination'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens to existing ranking rules, whether changes are immediate or asynchronous, or potential side effects. It mentions nothing about rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple update operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what ranking rules are, what format the JSON value should take, what happens after the update, or how to verify success. Given the complexity of updating a core search setting and the lack of structured documentation, more context 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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (indexUid and value). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the ranking rules setting' clearly states the action (update) and target (ranking rules setting), but it's vague about what ranking rules are and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'reset-ranking-rules' or 'get-ranking-rules'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about what ranking rules control or affect.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reset-ranking-rules' (which presumably resets to defaults) or 'get-ranking-rules' (which retrieves current values). The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation ('update') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple update operation and front-loads the key action and target.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage guidelines, and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured safety or response information.
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%, with both parameters ('indexUid', 'value') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the JSON format for 'value' or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the searchable attributes setting' clearly states the action (update) and target (searchable attributes setting), but it's somewhat vague about what 'searchable attributes' means in this context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-searchable-attributes' (read vs. write) but doesn't specify what exactly gets updated beyond the general setting.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'reset-searchable-attributes' or 'update-settings'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Add documents' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify whether this creates new documents, updates existing ones, or both; whether it's idempotent; what happens on failure; or any rate limits/permissions required. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, whether documents replace or merge with existing ones, or any side effects. Given the complexity of document addition operations, more context is needed for proper agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples for the JSON array, primary key usage). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('Add documents') and target resource ('to a Meilisearch index'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update-documents', which could also add documents to an index, leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.
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 like 'update-documents' or 'create-index'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., index must exist), exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with insufficient context for proper tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions (e.g., if index already exists), or what happens on success (e.g., returns index details). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns index object, task ID), error handling, or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of creating a database index and the lack of structured data, more context is needed for effective use.
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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating with extra context.
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 action ('Create') and resource ('Meilisearch index'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-index' or 'swap-indexes', which would require more specific context about when to create versus modify an index.
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. With siblings like 'update-index' and 'swap-indexes' available, there's no indication of prerequisites (e.g., whether an index must not exist already) or comparative use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a destructive operation ('Delete all documents'), but lacks details about permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to the index structure. This is a significant gap for a high-impact mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
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?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the consequences of deletion, whether documents are permanently removed, what the response looks like, or any safety considerations. More context is needed given the tool's complexity and impact.
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 'indexUid', so the schema already documents it adequately. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.
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 action ('Delete all documents') and the target resource ('in a Meilisearch index'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-document' (singular) or 'delete-documents' (batch), which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete-document' or 'delete-documents'. The description only states what it does without context about appropriate use cases 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 carries full burden. It states the destructive action ('Delete') but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., if document doesn't exist), or what happens to associated data. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
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?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (permanence, errors), usage context vs. siblings, or return values. Given the complexity of deletion operations and lack of structured data, more guidance 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%, with both parameters ('indexUid', 'documentId') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (it doesn't explain format, constraints, or examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('Delete') and target ('a document by its ID from a Meilisearch index'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'delete-documents' (plural), which appears to handle multiple document deletions. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'delete-documents' (for multiple deletions) or 'delete-all-documents' (for bulk removal). It doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or contextual constraints. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects associated data, or has rate limits. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like irreversibility, error conditions, or response format. For a tool that permanently removes data, more context is needed to guide safe usage.
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%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the target is a Meilisearch index. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a Meilisearch index'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete-document' or 'delete-all-documents' by specifying the target is an index rather than documents. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'swap-indexes' which might also involve index removal, keeping it from a perfect score.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., index must exist), consequences (e.g., data loss), or when to choose other deletion tools like 'delete-documents'. This lack of context leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' a document but doesn't describe what happens if the document doesn't exist (error behavior), whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics, or what the return format looks like. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval operation and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.
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?
For a retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what gets returned (document fields, format, error cases), doesn't mention the optional 'fields' parameter's purpose, and provides no context about the Meilisearch system. Given the complexity of having sibling tools and no structured output information, this leaves too many gaps for effective tool selection and use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'by its ID' which aligns with documentId parameter, but provides no additional context about parameter usage, relationships, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('Get') and resource ('a document by its ID from a Meilisearch index'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-documents' (plural) which retrieves multiple documents, or 'search' which finds documents via queries rather than direct ID lookup.
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 doesn't mention that this is for retrieving a single known document by ID, as opposed to using 'get-documents' for multiple documents, 'search' for query-based retrieval, or 'facet-search' for filtered results. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what the configuration output includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of configuration retrieval and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'embedders configuration' entails, the format of the return value, or any behavioral aspects like error handling, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.
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% description coverage, with 'indexUid' clearly documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for any gaps.
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 action ('Get') and resource ('embedders configuration for an index'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get-settings' or 'get-index', which also retrieve index-related information, leaving some ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes this tool.
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. With many sibling tools like 'get-settings', 'get-index', and 'update-embedders', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information (implying a read-only operation), but doesn't clarify aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the index doesn't exist), response format, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with a database index.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant information.
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?
For a tool that retrieves information about a database index, the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to disclose critical behavioral aspects (e.g., error conditions, response structure) or differentiate from many sibling tools (e.g., 'get-settings', 'stats'). This lack of context makes it inadequate for informed tool selection by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'indexUid' clearly documented as the 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints (e.g., case sensitivity). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Get information') and the resource ('a specific Meilisearch index'), which distinguishes it from general index operations like 'list-indexes' or 'create-index'. However, it doesn't specify what type of information is retrieved (e.g., configuration, statistics, status), leaving some ambiguity compared to more detailed sibling tools like 'get-settings' or 'stats'.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the index must exist), differentiate from similar tools like 'list-indexes' (for multiple indices) or 'get-settings' (for specific configuration), or indicate typical use cases (e.g., checking index health or metadata).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get all settings' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'all settings' encompasses. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with zero wasted words. It directly communicates what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves configuration data. It doesn't explain what 'settings' include, the return format, or potential errors. For a read operation with rich sibling tools, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' clearly documented in the schema as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all settings for a Meilisearch index'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-index' or 'get-task' by specifying 'settings' as the target. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update-settings' or 'reset-settings' in terms of read vs write operations.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to sibling tools like 'get-index' (which might include settings) or 'update-settings' (for modifications).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool performs searches but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, potential rate limits, error handling for partial failures, or the format of results. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., aggregated results, error responses) or provide context on usage scenarios. For a tool that likely returns complex data, this leaves the agent with insufficient information.
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%, with the 'searches' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of the JSON array structure or constraints on the number of searches. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('perform multiple searches') and the scope ('in one request'), which is specific and distinguishes it from the basic 'search' tool. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other search-related tools like 'facet-search' or 'vector-search', so it's not fully differentiated from all siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like the standard 'search' tool or other search-related siblings. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, performance considerations, or specific scenarios where batching searches is beneficial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('reset'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's destructive (likely yes, as it changes settings), rate limits, or what the default value is. The description is minimal and lacks context beyond the basic action.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool (implied by 'reset'), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the default value is, how the reset affects search behavior, or what the response looks like, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's impact.
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%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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 action ('reset') and the target ('distinct attribute setting'), specifying it sets it to a 'default value'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update-distinct-attribute' (which modifies) and 'get-distinct-attribute' (which retrieves), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'reset-displayed-attributes' or other reset tools beyond the attribute name.
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 is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), when not to use it (e.g., if you want to modify rather than reset), or refer to sibling tools like 'update-distinct-attribute' for custom settings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'reset' implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is destructive (e.g., removes custom embedders), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or returns any output. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its function, earning its place with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 'reset' operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'reset' entails (e.g., default values, side effects), the expected outcome, or error conditions, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in context with siblings like 'update-embedders'.
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% description coverage, with 'indexUid' clearly documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.
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 action ('reset') and the target ('embedders configuration for an index'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-embedders' or 'get-embedders', which would require mentioning what 'reset' entails compared to those operations.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the index must exist), consequences (e.g., if it reverts to defaults), or when to choose it over related tools like 'update-embedders' or 'get-embedders'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('reset') which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is destructive (likely yes, as it changes settings), requires specific permissions, has side effects on search results, or provides confirmation output. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the action and outcome. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a mutation (reset) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., impact, permissions), doesn't explain the return value or confirmation, and relies solely on the schema for parameters. For a tool that modifies settings, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with one parameter 'indexUid' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'faceting' is or how the reset applies). Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.
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 action ('reset') and the resource ('faceting setting'), specifying it sets to the default value. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update-faceting' (which modifies) and 'get-faceting' (which retrieves), but doesn't explicitly mention the index context, which is implied by the parameter. This is clear but could be slightly more specific about the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-faceting' or 'get-faceting'. The description implies it's for resetting to defaults, but doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., after custom changes) or exclusions (e.g., not for initial setup). Usage is implied from the action, but lacks contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a mutation ('reset') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what the default value is, if changes are reversible, or potential side effects. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information about what the reset entails, what the default value is, potential impacts, or response format. For a tool that modifies system settings, more context 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%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema 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?
The description clearly states the action ('reset') and the resource ('filterable attributes setting'), specifying it sets to default value. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update-filterable-attributes' by focusing on resetting rather than modifying, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other reset tools like 'reset-displayed-attributes'.
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 is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when resetting is appropriate, or contrast with other tools like 'update-filterable-attributes' or 'get-filterable-attributes'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool resets to default, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, side effects (e.g., impact on search results), or error handling. It's vague and lacks critical context 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('reset') and target. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'default value' means, what happens after reset (e.g., confirmation or error), or how it interacts with other settings. For a mutation tool with siblings, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.
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%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what an index is or how the reset applies. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 action ('reset') and the target ('pagination setting'), specifying it sets to 'default value'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update-pagination' (which modifies) and 'get-pagination' (which retrieves), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be slightly more distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-pagination' or 'get-pagination' is provided. The description implies usage for resetting to defaults, but lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions. It's minimal and doesn't help the agent choose between sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation ('reset'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what the default value is, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what the reset entails (e.g., what the default ranking rules are), the outcome, or error conditions, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use.
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% description coverage, with 'indexUid' clearly documented as the 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('reset') and the target ('ranking rules setting to its default value'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-ranking-rules' or other reset tools (e.g., 'reset-settings'), which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'update-ranking-rules' or 'get-ranking-rules', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for resetting. This lack of explicit usage instructions limits its effectiveness for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'reset' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, is reversible, has side effects, or what happens to existing settings. The description is minimal and lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool involves mutation (reset) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the default value is, how the reset affects search functionality, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool in a context with many sibling settings tools, more context is needed to guide proper use.
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%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' documented in the schema as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema 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?
The description clearly states the action ('reset') and the target ('searchable attributes setting'), specifying it sets to 'default value'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update-searchable-attributes' by focusing on resetting rather than updating, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific and understandable.
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 like 'update-searchable-attributes' or 'get-searchable-attributes'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as when a reset is needed or what the default value entails. Usage is implied only by the action 'reset', with no explicit when/when-not statements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'reset' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to existing settings, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a mutation (reset) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values, which are critical for safe and effective use. The minimal description doesn't compensate for the missing structured data.
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%, with the parameter 'indexUid' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying the reset applies to a specific index, which is already covered by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 action ('reset') and the target resource ('stop words setting'), specifying it sets to 'default value'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update-stop-words' by focusing on resetting rather than updating, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction. The purpose is specific and actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-stop-words' or 'get-stop-words'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing index or when resetting is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('reset'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's reversible, if it triggers background tasks, or what happens to existing custom synonyms. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, task handling), usage context, and expected outcomes, which are critical for safe and effective use.
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%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema 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?
The description clearly states the action ('reset') and the target resource ('synonyms setting'), specifying it sets to 'default value'. It distinguishes from sibling 'get-synonyms' (read) and 'update-synonyms' (modify), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'reset-*' tools like 'reset-settings' or 'reset-stop-words'.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), when not to use it (e.g., if synonyms are already at default), or direct alternatives like 'update-synonyms' for custom values.
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. While 'Search' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention any behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. For a search tool with 15 parameters, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
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?
For a search tool with 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The agent would need to rely heavily on the parameter schema alone, missing important contextual information about the tool's behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It doesn't explain parameter relationships, provide usage examples, or clarify which parameters are most commonly used versus advanced options.
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 action ('Search for documents') and the resource ('in a Meilisearch index'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'facet-search', 'multi-search', or 'vector-search', which are also search-related operations.
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. There are multiple sibling tools with 'search' in their names (facet-search, multi-search, vector-search), but the description doesn't indicate when this basic search tool is appropriate versus those specialized variants.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('swap') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a destructive operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens during the swap process, or potential side effects. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of swapping indexes (a potentially destructive operation) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'swap' entails operationally, what the tool returns, or any error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema fully documenting the single parameter 'indexes' as a JSON array of index pairs. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
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 action ('swap') and the resource ('two or more indexes in Meilisearch'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'update-index' or 'create-index', but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or how it differs from other index-related operations like 'update-index' or 'delete-index'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It states the action is an update but doesn't clarify whether this overwrites entire documents, merges fields, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., reindexing), or how errors are handled. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., partial updates, error handling), usage context (vs. siblings), and expected outcomes. Given the complexity of updating documents in a search index, more guidance is needed for effective agent use.
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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters (e.g., format of 'documents' as JSON array, what 'primaryKey' does if omitted). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('Update') and resource ('documents in a Meilisearch index'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from 'add-documents' by specifying 'update' rather than 'add', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other document-related siblings like 'delete-documents' or 'get-documents'.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing documents), differentiate from 'add-documents' for new vs. existing records, or explain when to choose this over other document operations like 'delete-documents' or 'get-documents'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Configure' implies a mutation/write operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, whether changes are immediate or asynchronous, what happens to existing embedder settings, or potential side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple configuration tool and front-loads the essential information.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what successful configuration entails, whether it returns confirmation data, how errors are handled, or how it interacts with vector search functionality. The context signals indicate this is a 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, but the description fails to compensate for missing behavioral and output information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (indexUid, embedders) with their types and purposes. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for embedders JSON or relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('Configure') and resource ('embedders for vector search'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-embedders' (read) or 'reset-embedders' (reset to defaults), which would be needed for a perfect score.
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 like 'reset-embedders' or 'get-embedders'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), exclusions, or appropriate contexts for configuration changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool performs an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the update is reversible, side effects on existing data, or rate limits. The limitation about primary key support is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a parenthetical limitation. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or waste, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., safety, effects), usage prerequisites, and expected outcomes. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, leaving gaps for an AI agent to operate safely and effectively.
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%, with both parameters (indexUid, primaryKey) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying the primaryKey is the updatable field. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description provides minimal extra value.
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 action ('Update') and resource ('a Meilisearch index'), and specifies the current capability ('currently only supports updating the primary key'). This distinguishes it from other update tools like update-documents or update-settings by limiting scope, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but could better differentiate from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create-index or other update-* tools. The description mentions a limitation ('only supports updating the primary key'), which implies usage context but doesn't state when this operation is appropriate or what prerequisites exist. This leaves the agent without explicit usage rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'updates settings' without disclosing behavioral traits like whether this is a partial or full update, if it's idempotent, what happens on errors, or if it triggers asynchronous tasks. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('indexUid' and 'settings'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the structure of the 'settings' JSON or providing examples, 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('settings for a Meilisearch index'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-index' or 'reset-settings', which could cause confusion about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reset-settings' or 'get-settings'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the index must exist or if specific permissions are required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic function. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance characteristics, error conditions, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. For a complex 10-parameter tool with vector operations, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration or repetition.
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?
For a complex vector search tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what vector search means in this context, how results are returned, what the relationship is between 'vector' and 'embedder' parameters, or how this differs from regular search. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without significant external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. However, it does establish the core concept of 'vector search' which provides context for why certain parameters like 'vector' and 'embedder' exist.
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 action ('Perform a vector search') and resource ('in a Meilisearch index'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from the sibling 'search' tool, which appears to be a general text search, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose vector search over regular search.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like the 'search' sibling tool. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context requirements, or typical use cases for vector search versus other search methods available in the system.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned status includes (e.g., feature names, enabled/disabled states) or any behavioral context like error handling. For a tool with no structured data to supplement it, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully handles parameters, and the description doesn't add unnecessary details.
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 ('Get') and resource ('status of experimental features in Meilisearch'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-settings' or 'info', which might also provide feature-related information, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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. With siblings like 'get-settings' or 'info' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'lists all indexes' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a paginated operation (implied by limit/offset parameters but not stated), what format the response takes, whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits. The description is minimal beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loaded with the essential information.
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 list operation with 2 documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations and with no output schema, it should ideally provide more context about response format or behavioral constraints. The description covers the basic 'what' but leaves gaps in 'how' and 'what to expect'.
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%, with both parameters ('limit' and 'offset') well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.
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 action ('List all indexes') and resource ('in the Meilisearch instance'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-index' or 'stats', which might also provide index information in different contexts.
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. With siblings like 'get-index' (for single index details), 'stats' (for instance statistics including indexes), and 'swap-indexes' (for index operations), there's no indication of when this list operation is preferred over other index-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'reset' implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires admin permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to existing settings, or if it triggers background tasks. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple reset operation), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it should ideally include more behavioral context like side effects or permissions, leaving some 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%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, but the schema provides adequate baseline information.
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 action ('reset') and the target ('displayed attributes setting to its default value'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-displayed-attributes' or 'update-displayed-attributes', which would be needed for a perfect score.
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 like 'update-displayed-attributes' or 'get-displayed-attributes'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the index must exist or be in a specific state, and doesn't mention any exclusions or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool deletes documents, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletions are permanent, if there's a confirmation step, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if some IDs don't exist. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete multiple documents') and includes essential details ('by their IDs', 'from a Meilisearch index') without any wasted words. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., permanence, error handling), usage context (e.g., when to use vs. siblings), or output expectations. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('indexUid' and 'documentIds'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'IDs' and 'Meilisearch index', but doesn't provide additional context like ID format, array size limits, or error handling. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Delete'), the target ('multiple documents'), the mechanism ('by their IDs'), and the location ('from a Meilisearch index'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'delete-document' (singular) and 'delete-all-documents' (all documents).
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 like 'delete-document' (for single documents) or 'delete-all-documents' (for all documents). It also doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing index or valid document IDs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or what the response format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a simple read operation. However, it lacks details on what 'system information' includes (e.g., server version, uptime, configuration) and how it differs from sibling tools, which could help the agent use it more effectively in context.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't waste space on non-existent parameters, though it doesn't add extra value 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 ('Get') and resource ('system information of the Meilisearch server'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'health', 'stats', or 'version', which might provide overlapping or related system information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 such as 'health' (checks server availability), 'stats' (provides database statistics), or 'version' (gets software version). Without any context on usage scenarios or exclusions, the agent must infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions resetting to a default value, implying a mutation, but fails to specify if this requires special permissions, is reversible, or has side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and target. It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, reversibility), expected outcomes, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'indexUid' parameter. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what an index is or how to obtain its UID. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.
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 specific action ('reset') and the target resource ('typo tolerance setting'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update-typo-tolerance' or 'get-typo-tolerance'. It precisely communicates what the tool does without 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-typo-tolerance' or 'get-typo-tolerance'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the index must exist or be in a specific state, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'reset' to 'default value', which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is destructive (likely yes, as it changes settings), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or provides confirmation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('reset') and target ('sortable attributes setting'), with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and clear purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple mutation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output, or error handling. For a mutation tool, this leaves gaps that could hinder an AI agent's correct invocation without additional context.
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%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.
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 action ('reset') and the target resource ('sortable attributes setting'), specifying it returns to 'its default value'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update-sortable-attributes' or 'get-sortable-attributes'. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the index context, which is implied but could be more specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when reverting sortable attributes to defaults, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'update-sortable-attributes' or 'get-sortable-attributes'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing index, or exclusions, like not being applicable to non-sortable attributes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool retrieves statistics, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, what statistics are included (e.g., document counts, performance metrics), rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. It wastes no words and directly communicates the tool's behavior with the parameter implication. Every part of the sentence earns its place.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex statistical data. It adequately covers the basic purpose and parameter behavior but lacks details on what statistics are returned, error handling, or performance implications. For a read operation with minimal structured support, it's borderline adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'indexUid' fully documented in the schema as optional. The description adds marginal value by restating that omitting it returns stats for all indexes, but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('statistics about all indexes or a specific index'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes between getting stats for all indexes vs. a specific one, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get-index' or 'list-indexes' which provide different types of index information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning the optional parameter behavior (stats for all indexes if no indexUid provided). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-index' (which likely returns configuration) or 'list-indexes' (which likely lists metadata). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Enable') but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this requires admin permissions, is irreversible, affects performance, has side effects, or returns confirmation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation enabling an experimental feature) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, effects, or response format, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied since there are no parameters to document, and the description doesn't add unnecessary details.
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 specific action ('Enable') and the target resource ('vector search experimental feature in Meilisearch'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get-experimental-features' (which reads) or 'vector-search' (which uses the feature). It precisely communicates what the tool does without being tautological.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the feature must be available), exclusions, or related tools like 'get-experimental-features' for checking status. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool resets settings to defaults, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is destructive (likely yes, as it overwrites settings), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or returns any output. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Reset all settings') and outcome ('to their default values'), with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and clear purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., destructiveness, permissions), return values, or error handling. While the purpose is clear, the context for safe and effective use is insufficient.
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%, with the single parameter 'indexUid' documented as 'Unique identifier of the index'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.
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 ('reset') and the target ('all settings for a Meilisearch index'), specifying the outcome ('to their default values'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update-settings' (which modifies settings) and various 'reset-' tools for specific setting categories (e.g., 'reset-ranking-rules'), making the scope explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when default settings are needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'update-settings' or individual 'reset-' tools for specific settings. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's purpose 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation ('Check'), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as response format, error conditions, or whether it performs active probing versus status retrieval. It adds basic context 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.
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 (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but does not explain what 'healthy' means in practice (e.g., response indicators, timeouts), leaving gaps for an agent to infer behavior.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without redundancy. Baseline is 4 for zero 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 specific action ('Check') and target resource ('Meilisearch server'), with the qualifier 'healthy' precisely defining the purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like 'info', 'stats', or 'version' by focusing on operational status rather than configuration or performance metrics.
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 context—monitoring server health—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'info' (server details) or 'stats' (performance data). It provides clear intent but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get') without implying mutation, and specifies the scope ('Meilisearch server'), but does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It adequately describes the core behavior for a simple query tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get the version information') without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and earns its place by clearly stating the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete enough for basic understanding but lacks details on output format or behavioral nuances. It adequately covers the purpose but could benefit from more context about what the version information includes or how it differs from other status tools.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here, but does not compensate for any gaps since none exist. A baseline of 4 is applied as per rules for 0 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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('version information of the Meilisearch server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'health' or 'info' that provide different server status information. It precisely communicates what the tool does without being vague or tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving version details, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'health' or 'info' (which might include version info). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving usage context partially inferred rather than clearly defined.
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:

[![meilisearch-ts-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/devlimelabs/meilisearch-ts-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/devlimelabs/meilisearch-ts-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![meilisearch-ts-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/devlimelabs/meilisearch-ts-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/devlimelabs/meilisearch-ts-mcp)

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/devlimelabs/meilisearch-ts-mcp'

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