officient-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with no overlap. Even the calendar-related tools (get_day_calendar, get_month_calendar, add_calendar_event, etc.) are well-differentiated by granularity and action.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'officient_verb_noun' snake_case pattern. Verbs like list, get, search, add, overwrite, delete are used predictably, with no mixed conventions.
Tool Count5/5
24 tools is appropriate for a comprehensive HR API covering people, calendar, expenses, contracts, and more. Each tool addresses a distinct operation, and the meta-tools (list_endpoints, describe_endpoint, request) add valuable discoverability without bloat.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers most core HR workflows (people, calendar, expenses, contracts, etc.) with dedicated tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no create/update for people, no webhook management beyond listing), but the officient_request escape hatch mitigates these, and the surface handles primary use cases well.
Average 4.3/5 across 24 of 24 tools scored. Lowest: 3.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral details: pagination (30 per page, zero-indexed) and the required scope. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two short sentences—and front-loads the core purpose. Every word adds value.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description lacks details on the response structure (e.g., fields returned, sorting). While pagination is covered, the absence of return value information makes it less complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, the schema already describes the 'page' parameter well. The description repeats the same pagination info, adding no further semantic 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 tool lists employment contracts with pagination. The verb 'list' and resource 'contracts' are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the required scope 'contracts:read' and that it's read-only, providing basic usage conditions. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_people.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool requires 'calendar:read' scope and is 'READ-ONLY', confirming safety and specifying the access level. It also lists the specific returned data (time off, overtime, scheduled minutes), adding value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and output, and the second adds security context. Efficiently front-loaded.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must communicate return values. It mentions three data types but lacks detail on the structure (e.g., whether minutes are totals or per-period). Adequate for a simple single-day query, but incomplete for precise 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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.
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 specifies 'Time off, overtime and scheduled minutes for a single person on a single date.' This clearly states the resource (person's calendar), action (get), and scope (single day), differentiating it from sibling tools like get_month_calendar or get_year_calendar.
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 a single day per request, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or recommend alternatives like get_month_calendar for multi-day views. With many calendar-related siblings, more explicit guidance would be beneficial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the READ-ONLY note adds no new info. Description adds pagination details but lacks info on sorting, ordering, or return structure. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: 3 sentences covering purpose, pagination, sibling tool reference, scope, and read-only flag. No waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, and description does not explain return format (e.g., array of documents, total count, pagination links). Adequate for a read-only list with good annotations but could be more informative.
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 fully documents parameters. Description adds the pagination context (zero-indexed) but not beyond what schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it lists documents attached to an employee, asset, or car, and mentions pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other entities like people, calendars, or vehicles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance to use officient_request for downloading documents and states required scope. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or common pitfalls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint and readOnlyHint. Description adds 'Permanently remove' and 'WRITES DATA' which reinforce but do not add new behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Sufficient for a simple tool with 2 required params and no output schema. Could mention irreversibility or return value, but not needed given clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. Description adds usage guidance ('Get event_id from read tool') but no new semantic detail beyond schema. Baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action (permanently remove) and resource (one calendar event from a person's calendar), with an example (day off). Differentiates from siblings like add and overwrite.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides prerequisite (get event_id from read tool) and required scope (calendar:write). Lacks explicit when-not or alternative comparisons, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'READ-ONLY' and adds 'Required scope: basics:read', providing additional behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences with no fluff. Every part adds value—resource definition, optional filter, pagination, scope, and read-only status.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description covers key aspects: assets scope, optional filter, pagination, and required scope. The return format is not described, but for a list tool this is 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds the phrase 'optionally filtered by owner' reflecting person_id, but this is not significantly beyond the schema's own description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists company assets with examples (laptops, phones, badges) and an optional filter by owner. It distinguishes from sibling list tools (e.g., list_people, list_vehicles) by the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates optional filtering by owner and zero-indexed pagination, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tools are for different resources, but no direct comparison or exclusion is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description complements annotations by confirming the tool is read-only and requires no network call or scope. It lists exactly what information is returned (path/query params, request body schema, example, scope, docs URL). This adds context beyond the annotations, which already indicate readOnlyHint=true. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the core detail and key notes (no network call, no scope). It is concise but includes all important aspects without fluff. Minor improvement could merge the READ-ONLY note into the first sentence, but overall effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, what it returns, and its safe nature. It references the sibling tool 'officient_request' for the intended usage sequence. Complete enough for the 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?
The single parameter operationId is described in the schema as 'Operation id exactly as returned by officient_list_endpoints, e.g. "add-event".' The description repeats this nearly verbatim, so it adds no additional semantic meaning. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. No improvement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: providing full detail for one Officient API endpoint, including parameters, body schema, example, required scope, and docs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like officient_list_endpoints (listing) and officient_request (making requests). The use of 'describe' as verb with 'endpoint' as resource is specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use before calling officient_request,' providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. It also notes 'no network call, no scope needed,' which helps the agent understand it's safe and quick. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other sibling tools for deeper context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark read-only and non-destructive; description reinforces 'READ-ONLY' and lists the data fields returned (time off, overtime, scheduled minutes), adding behavioral detail beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no fluff. First sentence states what the tool does, second provides scope and read-only hint. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete for a simple query tool. While no output schema is provided, the description covers the return types (time off, overtime, scheduled minutes). No missing critical details.
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?
All three parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it retrieves time off, overtime, and scheduled minutes for a single person for one month. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_day_calendar and get_year_calendar by specifying monthly granularity.
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?
Uses 'Required scope: calendar:read' to specify authorization needed. Does not explicitly contrast with day or year calendars, but the monthly scope is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the required scope ('personal.info.custom.fields:read') and repeats the read-only nature, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using one sentence plus a scope statement. Every part adds value with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although no output schema is present, the description lists the possible custom field types, giving a good sense of return structure. This is sufficient for a simple read tool with clear annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of the single parameter (person_id) with description 'Officient person id.' The tool description adds no further meaning or formatting details, so it meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets custom field values for one employee, listing the field types (text, number, etc.) and the required scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_people or get_person.
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 specifies the required OAuth scope and labels the tool as read-only, which helps guide appropriate use. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as the required permission scope and that it returns scheduled minutes per weekday. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description reinforces and supplements without contradiction.
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 two short sentences covering purpose, return content, permission scope, and read-only nature. Every word adds value, and no information is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately explains the return format (scheduled minutes per weekday) and required scope. It lacks details on error handling or behavior for invalid inputs, but for a simple read operation with strong annotations, it is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has full description coverage (100%) for the single parameter person_id. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the score is at the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the employee's current weekly working schedule with scheduled minutes per weekday. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_day_calendar and get_month_calendar by specifying the weekly scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates the required permission scope (weekly.schedules:read) and marks the tool as READ-ONLY, providing context for safe usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternative calendar endpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the output contains the custom_day_off_type_id and the required scope. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word is informative. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives examples of event types and the key ID. It lacks detail on other potential return fields but is adequate for 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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the year parameter. The tool description reinforces the year context but does not add new information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists custom event types for a given year and specifies the role of the custom_day_off_type_id. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_day_calendar or add_calendar_event by focusing on event type metadata.
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?
It mentions required scope calendar:read and the read-only nature, and implies the ID is needed for adding custom events. However, it does not explicitly direct the agent to use this tool before add_calendar_event or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with the description's 'READ-ONLY' label. Description adds pagination detail beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no redundancy. Essential info is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, pagination, scope, and parameters. Lacks return structure description, but acceptable for a simple list tool with no output 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 coverage is 100%, so description adds minimal extra meaning. Repeats pagination info already in schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'List employees, 30 per page' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like 'search_people' and 'get_person' by implying a paginated list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides pagination semantics (zero-indexed) and required scope. Does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., search_people) but context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that the scope is required and outlines the data returned (personal data, contract summary, team, manager), adding useful context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second provides essential scope and read-only note.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently lists the kind of information returned and the required scope, making it complete and easy to understand.
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 has 100% coverage for the only parameter 'person_id' with a clear description. The description does not add additional semantic information about the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves 'Full detail for one employee' including specific categories, and the name 'get_person' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_people' and 'search_people'.
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 specifies the required scope 'personal.info:read' and notes it is READ-ONLY, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or contrast with other tools.
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?
Description adds value beyond annotations by specifying output format and that no network call or scope is needed. Confirms read-only nature. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences that front-load the main purpose, output format, and usage. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a discovery tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains output format, usage pattern, and filtering. Annotations cover safety. No missing critical 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 already covers all 5 parameters with descriptions. Description re-iterates filtering options but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool lists/disovers Officient API endpoints from a bundled spec. Distinguishes from siblings by noting it returns one-liners to feed into officient_describe_endpoint or officient_request.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells how to use the results (feed operationId into other tools) and mentions filtering options. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states READ-ONLY, required scope basics:read, and zero-indexed pagination, adding significant behavioral context beyond the annotations which only hint at read-only and destructive intent.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and includes essential context like pagination and scope without any wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, optional filter, pagination, required scope, and read-only nature. No important information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already has high coverage (100%) with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists fleet vehicles, with an optional filter by person. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_people or list_assets.
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 fleet vehicles and mentions optional person filtering, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, making the safety profile clear. The description adds context by stating the required scope and explicitly labeling it 'READ-ONLY'. This goes beyond annotations and is consistent.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence explains functionality and criteria. Second sentence covers usage rule, required scope, and read-only nature. Every sentence adds 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?
The description lacks details about the return format (e.g., what fields are returned, if pagination exists). Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify the output structure. However, the tool is simple and the openWorldHint suggests flexibility, so it is functional but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description. The description adds the constraint that at least one criterion must be supplied, which is not enforced in the schema (no required parameters). This additional guidance is valuable beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'people' with specific search criteria (name, work email, national number). It also notes that at least one criterion must be supplied, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'officient_list_people' (list all) and 'officient_get_person' (by ID).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Supply at least one criterion' and states the required scope. It implies when to use this tool versus list/get tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it writes data and requires calendar:write scope, aligning with annotations (destructiveHint=true). Adds constraint that all events in one call must be in the same year. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact (two sentences plus key clarifications), front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers main points: multi-event capability, year constraint, type handling, required scope. No output schema, but description doesn't need return values. Could mention success behavior or error handling, but overall sufficient given annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds: 'Set type="custom" together with custom_day_off_type_id from officient_list_event_types; omit that id for sick_day / education' and 'duration_minutes may be the string "all_day"', providing extra semantics beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it adds one or more events (day off, sick day, education, overtime, etc.) to a person's calendar. It specifies constraints like all events in same year and differentiates from sibling tools like overwrite and delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context on when to set type='custom' and when to omit custom_day_off_type_id, and mentions required scope. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives like overwrite or delete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: pagination behavior ('30 per page, zero-indexed pagination') and required scope. Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive, so the description complements well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three short sentences, efficiently conveying key information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with no output schema, the description covers pagination and scope. It does not explain the response structure (e.g., items array, total count), but annotations (openWorldHint) and sibling tools provide some context. Still, a slightly more complete description of the response could be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully describes parameters. The description reiterates pagination info already in the schema parameter descriptions, adding no new semantic meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the resource ('Calendar days off requests') and the action (list), with specific details like pagination. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on days-off requests specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides helpful usage guidance by specifying the required scope ('calendar:read') and read-only nature. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like officient_get_day_calendar or officient_get_month_calendar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's addition of 'READ-ONLY' is redundant but not harmful. It adds useful context about zero-indexed pagination and the required scope expenses:read, which goes beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, very concise, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, filtering, pagination, and permissions. It does not explain the return format, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the conditional behavior of the month parameter and the pagination scheme, which enriches the understanding beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool lists expenses for a whole year or for a specific month when provided, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also mentions pagination and required scope, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context on when to use the tool (for a year or a month), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. However, among the sibling tools, there is no other expense-listing tool, so this is a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. The description adds context about webhook behavior (POSTing and retries) which is beyond the tool's own behavior. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences that are front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted words. Every sentence provides value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and provides context about webhooks. It is complete enough for a simple list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info which is acceptable since schema coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists webhook subscriptions on the account, using specific verb 'List' and resource 'webhooks'. It is distinct from sibling tools which operate on other resources.
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 mentions required scope 'webhooks:read' and declares the operation read-only, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide context on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces with 'READ-ONLY'. Additionally, it adds auth requirement (scope) and expected data fields, providing value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences convey purpose, data, and requirements. No wasted words; information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers what the tool does and required scope. Lacks explicit output format, but hints at fields. Given simplicity, it's adequate but could specify return structure more.
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?
No parameters exist, so description does not need to explain them. Baseline 4 applies as per instructions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it returns info about the account behind the access token, listing specific data (company, user, locale). The verb 'get' and resource are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on other resources.
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?
Specifies required scope 'basics:read'. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the context implies when to use (to get own account info) and no sibling duplicates this function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description reinforces 'READ-ONLY' and adds behavioral details: returns scheduled_minutes and events, filter affects response, and required scope. No contradictions. Description adds significant context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is two sentences plus a scope and read-only note. No redundant information. Every sentence is informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (days with scheduled_minutes and events). It covers filtering and required scope. Could elaborate on output format, but for a simple retrieval tool it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with all three parameters described. Description adds value by explaining that 'all' is the default for filter and advising to use days_with_events to keep response small. This goes beyond the schema's enum description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it gets a person's calendar for one year, listing days with scheduled_minutes and events. It also mentions filtering with days_with_events. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_day_calendar and get_month_calendar.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description provides guidance to use days_with_events filter to keep response small, and states required scope. It implies the use case (yearly calendar) but does not explicitly exclude other tools like month or day calendars. Clear context but no explicit 'when not to use'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds verified behavioral details (no member list, no team-detail endpoint, required scope) that enhance transparency without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, though the note about live verification adds length but is valuable for trust. Could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of parameters and output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, limitations, and provides a complete picture for an agent to decide when and how to use it.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it lists all teams, returns id and name only. Distinguishes from siblings by noting the limitation of no member list and the absence of a team-detail endpoint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly describes when to use the tool and provides clear alternatives: walk officient_list_people and use officient_request to reconstruct org structure when team membership is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds critical behavioral details: validation against spec, zero-indexed pagination, and write capability warning, complementing annotations that set destructiveHint and readOnlyHint.
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?
Concise paragraph front-loading purpose, covering usage guidance, behavior, and warnings without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Comprehensive for a generic endpoint caller: covers input validation, pagination, write warning, scope checking, and priority over dedicated tools. No output schema needed as output varies.
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?
All parameters are described in schema (100% coverage). Description adds context: validation, pagination index, file upload format, and explains dry_run, pathParams, etc., beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly identifies as an escape hatch to call any Officient endpoint by operationId. Distinguishes from dedicated tools by stating preference for those when available.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says to use when no dedicated tool exists, recommends checking scope via officient_describe_endpoint, and warns about write operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds critical behavioral context: the API does nothing when event type and duration match, even if start time differs; recommends verifying writes by reading back; states idempotency; declares required scope and that it writes data. This goes well beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured: clear purpose first, then use case, critical caveat, alternative method, verification advice, scope, and write warning. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a write tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers usage, behavioral nuances, parameter interactions, failure modes, and recommended verification. It also references relevant sibling tools explicitly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that the event type cannot be changed and why duration_minutes matching prevents start_time_minutes updates, and when custom_day_off_type_id is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs an idempotent upsert of a single calendar event by type on a given date, overwriting existing or creating new. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with officient_delete_calendar_event + officient_add_calendar_event for start time changes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes explicit guidance on when to use alternatives: to move an existing event's start time, use delete then add. It also notes the caveat about same duration preventing update, guiding users away from this tool when that condition is problematic.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![officient-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dhrpieterjan/officient-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dhrpieterjan/officient-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/dhrpieterjan/officient-mcp'

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