mcp-hs4

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
All tools are distinctly scoped within hierarchical namespaces (health, resolve, devices, events, cameras, admin, etc.), with clear and non-overlapping responsibilities. Even seemingly similar tools like 'hs4.intent.device_set_by_name' and 'hs4.devices.set' have different use cases (natural language resolution vs direct control).
Naming Consistency5/5
The naming follows a uniform 'hs4.<domain>.<subdomain>.<action>' pattern with snake_case throughout. Each tool's name precisely reflects its function and place in the hierarchy, making navigation predictable.
Tool Count3/5
At 63 tools, the count is high but arguably justified given the breadth of HomeSeer HS4 (devices, events, cameras, plugins, interfaces, users, system admin). However, it borders on overwhelming and could be trimmed by merging some specialized admin tools.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides full CRUD and lifecycle management for all major entities (users, plugins, interfaces, cameras, events, devices) plus system operations, health checks, natural language resolution, and audit logging. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of managing an HS4 server.
Average 2.9/5 across 63 of 63 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
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
- Last stable release on February 28, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the resolution logic (event first, then device fallback) but omits critical details like side effects (e.g., state changes), authorization needs, or what happens to other scene aspects. The parameters like dryRun or confirm are not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters and a complex process. It front-loads the activation concept but fails to provide essential details, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise.
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?
Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and a multi-step process (resolution then fallback), the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover return values, error conditions, or how parameters influence behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no information about any of the 9 parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent must rely solely on the schema, which lacks human-readable meaning. For example, 'preferPath' and 'eventMinScore' are not explained.
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 activates a scene by first resolving an event, with a device fallback. This specific verb and resource (activate scene) distinguishes it from siblings like event_run_by_name or device_set_by_name, though it does not explicitly define what a 'scene' is 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 implies usage for scene activation with a resolution process but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like event_run_by_name or device_set_by_name. No context on prerequisites or when to choose the event path versus fallback.
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 'admin namespace' implying privileged access, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or if there are side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks substance. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but does not expand on any details.
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 minimal parameter info, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what diagnostics are collected, expected output, prerequisites, or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. The two parameters ('level' enum with default 'basic', and optional 'interfaceId') are not explained, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them.
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 'Collect' and resource 'interface diagnostics', and specifies the admin namespace. It is not a tautology, but it could be more specific about what diagnostics entail to better distinguish it from sibling tools like hs4.admin.interfaces.list.
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. Sibling tools include many admin interfaces operations, but no context is given for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose idempotency, side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
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 very short but at the cost of omitting critical details about the parameter and return value. While concise, it lacks efficiency because important information is missing.
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 simple input schema (one optional boolean) and no output schema, the description still fails to explain what the tool returns or what 'catalog/install metadata' entails. An agent would lack sufficient context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'includeRaw' has 0% schema description coverage and the tool description does not explain its meaning or effect. The agent receives no semantic help beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'plugin catalog/install metadata' in the admin namespace, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like install, update, or remove. However, it could be more specific about what 'catalog/install metadata' includes.
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 hs4.plugins.list or hs4.admin.plugins.install. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for use.
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 available, the description must fully disclose behavior. However, it only says 'Install a plugin through admin controls' without mentioning side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is destructive. The many safety-related parameters (confirm, maintenanceWindowId, etc.) are not explained in context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is too brief for a tool with 12 parameters and significant administrative implications. Essential information is missing, making the description under-specified rather than concise.
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?
Given the high parameter count, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide a complete understanding of the tool's operation, prerequisites, or consequences. The tool appears to be a critical admin mutation, yet the description lacks essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 75%, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and types. Key parameters like dryRun, confirm, and riskLevel are not explained in the description, leaving the agent without context on how to use them effectively.
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 (install) and the resource (plugin) with the context (admin controls). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like hs4.admin.plugins.update and hs4.admin.plugins.remove.
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, what prerequisites exist, or when not to use it. There is no comparison with sibling tools to help the agent decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description omits all behavioral traits. It does not state that the tool is read-only, does not describe pagination, rate limiting, or permissions. The burden is entirely on the description, and it fails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is too minimal—it earns its place for stating purpose but provides no additional valuable information. A longer description would be justified.
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?
With two parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, filtering options (if any), or how to handle errors. Completely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description says nothing about the parameters (limit, includeDisabled). The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, which are self-explanatory but lack context (e.g., what does includeDisabled affect?).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action (List), the resource (HS4 users), and the scope (admin namespace), clearly distinguishing it from sibling create/update/delete tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hs4.devices.list or hs4.events.list. No mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only implies read-only access but fails to explain what 'status snapshot' entails, how parameters like 'fresh' or 'compress' affect the result, or any potential side effects. Minimal transparency.
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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded, but it sacrifices necessary detail. While short, it does not adequately convey the tool's scope or parameters.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It omits return format, parameter behavior, and any constraints or limitations, making it insufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no semantic value for any of the 10 parameters. The only hint is 'selected devices or full system' which vaguely maps to 'refs' or 'everything' but does not explain their roles.
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 ('Fetch status snapshot') and the scope ('selected devices or full system'). The verb-resource pair is specific and distinct from sibling tools like hs4.devices.list or hs4.devices.get, though it does not explicitly differentiate them.
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 hs4.devices.get or hs4.health.get. The description does not include any context about prerequisites or common 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'prepare/optionally commit' but does not explain the behavioral implications, such as whether changes are destructive, if confirmation is required, or what happens on dry run. The description lacks transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but at the cost of completeness. It is front-loaded but omits critical details. It could be improved by retaining conciseness while adding necessary information.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain parameters, workflow, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. None of the 10 parameters are explained. The description does not help the agent understand parameter roles or relationships.
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 resolves a device by name and prepares/commits a state change. It provides a specific verb (resolve, prepare/commit) and resource (device). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like hs4.resolve.devices or hs4.devices.set, so it misses the sibling differentiation expected for 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description does not help the agent decide between this and similar 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 present, and the description provides minimal behavioral context. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, the format of the response, or any side effects. The term 'resolve' implies a lookup, but the behavior is not explicitly disclosed.
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 very concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices completeness. It could be expanded to include more detail without becoming overly long.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and only a minimal description, the tool definition lacks crucial contextual details. It does not explain what output to expect, how to interpret results, or any prerequisites for the input query.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond their names and types. The 'limit' and 'includeEvidence' parameters have defaults but no semantic meaning is provided, making it difficult for an agent to use them correctly.
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 resolves device references from natural-language queries, distinguishing it from sibling resolve tools for events and cameras. However, it does not specify what constitutes a 'device ref' (e.g., names, IDs).
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus sibling tools like hs4.devices.list for exact lookups or other resolve tools for different entities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. Only states it resolves IDs from natural language; does not mention read-only nature, potential side effects, authorization needs, or that results are likely/probabilistic. Minimal transparency.
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?
Single sentence is concise but underspecified. Could add a second sentence to clarify parameters or output without becoming verbose. It's minimal but lacks completeness.
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?
Given 4 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits parameter roles, return value, and how this tool fits into the workflow (e.g., output IDs usable by hs4.events.get). Fails to cover essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It only references the 'query' parameter implicitly via 'natural-language query'. No explanation of 'limit', 'groupHint', or 'includeEvidence'. Fails to add meaning beyond bare 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?
Description specifies verb 'Resolve', resource 'event IDs', and input 'natural-language query'. It distinguishes from siblings like hs4.events.list or hs4.events.get by indicating fuzzy resolution rather than direct listing or retrieval. Could be clearer about output format (IDs only?).
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 vs alternatives. Does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. For example, when to prefer this over hs4.events.list or hs4.events.get is left implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely states 'Update' without mentioning permissions, whether mutations are destructive, rollback capabilities, or the need for confirm/dryRun. The schema hints at safe practices, but the description adds no transparency.
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 very short (one sentence), which is concise but may be overly minimal given the tool's 11 parameters and complex behavior. It lacks front-loaded key details, and every sentence should earn its place; here, one sentence does not suffice for completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 11 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and a generic description, the tool is insufficiently documented for an AI agent. Important aspects like permissible fields, dry-run behavior, and return values are omitted, leaving gaps in 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 high (82%), so the schema already provides parameter details. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema offers, but it does not contradict it either. Hence, a 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 'Update a plugin through admin controls' is clear about action and resource but lacks specificity about what aspect of the plugin is updated (e.g., version, configuration). Among sibling tools like install, remove, set_enabled, restart, it fails to differentiate, resulting in only a vague purpose.
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 vs alternatives such as admin.plugins.install, admin.plugins.set_enabled, or admin.plugins.restart. No when/when-not instructions or context for selection are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'in-memory/local' hinting at ephemeral data, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether queries return only current session logs. More detail is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and no schema descriptions. Conciseness is not an excuse for omitting critical information; the description is too brief to be useful.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, parameter usage, or any edge cases. The agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning to parameter names (tool, limit, since, action, result). The agent must infer all semantics from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
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 queries audit log entries from MCP operations, specifying the resource (audit log) and scope (in-memory/local). This uniquely identifies it among many sibling tools, as no other sibling mentions audit.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives or on prerequisites. While it is the only audit tool, the description does not explain context for filtering, pagination, 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'admin controls' but fails to explain key behaviors like the need for confirm=true, dry-run support, or risk levels. Minimal insight into mutation effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no wasted words, but lacks structure and key information. For a tool with 13 parameters, it is under-specified.
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 (13 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or behavioral nuances needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 69%, moderately high. The description adds no parameter information, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema for meaning. Does not compensate for undocumented parameters.
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 'Update an event definition through admin controls,' using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create and delete via the 'Update' verb, but does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 (e.g., admin events create). No prerequisites, context, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it lists interfaces, but does not indicate if it is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The phrase 'derived from HS4 status metadata' hints at a read operation but 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, making it concise. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing critical information, so it is not optimally structured.
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 simplicity of one optional parameter and no output schema, the description still lacks essential details: what is returned, whether pagination or filtering is supported, and what 'interfaces' means. It is incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the sole parameter 'includeRefs'. The agent must infer its meaning from the name alone, which is insufficient for correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'interfaces', distinguishing it from sibling tools like add, update, remove. However, 'interfaces' is ambiguous (could be network or API) and 'derived from HS4 status metadata' adds slight context but remains 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 hs4.devices.list or hs4.plugins.list. No prerequisites or recommended contexts are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The purpose implies a read action, but this is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise, but it lacks structure and additional context (e.g., return value format). It is not verbose, but for a single-parameter tool, minimalism is acceptable.
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 output schema and annotations, the description should provide more details about the snapshot payload (e.g., MIME type, data format, side effects). It is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter name 'camId'. It does not explain how to find the camera ID or any constraints beyond what is in 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 action 'Get', the resource 'camera snapshot payload', and identifies the target by camera ID. It distinguishes from siblings like hs4.cameras.list (listing cameras) and hs4.cameras.pan (panning).
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 sibling tools (e.g., hs4.cameras.list for IDs, hs4.admin.cameras.config for settings). No context on prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description is minimal. It does not disclose that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, auth requirements, or side effects. The short description leaves the agent without critical safety context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it lacks structure and fails to provide necessary detail. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
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?
Given the 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the return format, the purpose of optional parameters, or how to handle the required array parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter information beyond the name 'reference ID'. Parameters like includeRaw, maxDevices, includeControls, and resolveChildren are completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their 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 action ('Retrieve'), the resource ('devices'), and the method ('by reference ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like hs4.devices.list (which lists all devices) and hs4.devices.get implies 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hs4.devices.list, hs4.devices.controls.get, or hs4.devices.status.get. The description does not provide context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavior beyond basic action. Does not explain side effects, permissions, or what 'prepare' entails. The role of parameters like dryRun, confirm, and execute is unclear.
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?
Single sentence, concise but not very informative. Could be structured to separate resolve and commit phases for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the workflow, parameter interactions, error handling, or return values. Lacks context compared to sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal meaning. Mentions 'by name/group' linking to query and groupHint, and 'prepare/optionally commit' relating to dryRun/execute, but does not explain each parameter's purpose or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it resolves an event by name/group and prepares or optionally commits execution. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'hs4.events.run' and 'hs4.change.prepare' by combining resolve and commit, but the dual action could be confusing.
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 vs alternatives like 'hs4.events.run' or 'hs4.change.commit'. Does not explain when to use dryRun vs execute or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'call pluginfunction endpoint', which implies an action but does not disclose whether it is destructive, what side effects occur, or any authorization requirements. The schema hints at mutability via 'confirm' and 'dryRun', but the description is silent.
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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It would benefit from a brief explanation of the tool's purpose in one or two sentences without being verbose.
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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the domain (plugin functions), how to use the parameters, or the return value. The tool is complex and the description underdelivers.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description only mentions 'positional P1..Pn parameters' which loosely references the 'params' array but does not clarify any other parameters. With 50% schema coverage, the description should add meaning, but it adds nothing 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 it calls a plugin function endpoint with positional parameters, which is specific enough to convey the core action. However, it does not explain what a 'plugin function' is, leaving some ambiguity about the domain.
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 other plugin-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., hs4.plugins.list, hs4.admin.plugins.*). The description does not specify context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'create' without mentioning that it is a mutation requiring confirmation, dry-run capability, or admin privileges. Key behaviors from schema (e.g., required confirm for real changes) are omitted.
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?
Single sentence with no filler, but could be considered under-specified rather than concise. It is front-loaded with the key action but lacks depth.
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?
Tool is complex with 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. Description is too brief; it does not explain the workflow (dry-run vs mutation), required fields (name, streamUrl, domain), or admin requirements. Context from siblings not leveraged.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 75%, meaning many parameters already have descriptions. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. It does not summarize key params like domain constraint or confirm requirement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states specific verb 'create' and resource 'camera config', clearly indicating the action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update, delete, or list, which also exist for camera configs. The lack of title is not penalized.
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 (e.g., hs4.admin.cameras.config.update). No prerequisites or context for admin controls are mentioned. Parameters like confirm and dryRun imply a workflow but are not explained in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states 'update' implying mutation, but does not disclose whether updates are additive or destructive, the role of dryRun and confirm, or any side effects like requiring maintenance windows.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise but too brief; it does not earn its place as it provides minimal information beyond the tool name. An effective description should add value, which this does not.
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 (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain required parameters, return values, error conditions, or how this operation integrates with other admin workflows.
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 69%, so the description adds little beyond the schema. The description does not explain the meaning of parameters like name, profile, or streamUrl in the camera context, but the schema itself provides decent coverage for many parameters.
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 a camera config' and the context 'through admin controls'. It distinguishes the tool from sibling camera config tools like 'create' and 'delete', but could be more specific about what 'camera config' entails.
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 create or delete, nor does it mention prerequisites or context such as requiring a camera to exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Set' (implying mutation) but does not disclose that confirmation is required, that dry-run is available, or that maintenance windows and change tickets may be needed. These are critical 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at 7 words, but it is undersized for a tool with 11 parameters and complex mutation controls. It lacks structure and does not earn its conciseness by covering necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It provides no return value hints, no mutation context, and no mention of required confirmation or administrative constraints. The agent would struggle to use it correctly 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?
Schema description coverage is high (82%), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters like 'camId' or 'profile' beyond what the schema provides. It does not compensate for the two undocumented parameters.
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 identifies the verb ('Set') and the resource ('camera stream profile'), and the 'admin controls' qualifier distinguishes it from general camera tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like hs4.admin.cameras.config.update, leaving room for 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites listed, and no mention of when not to use it. The description is a single sentence with no contextual cues for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. Only states 'list inferred category/room metadata' without explaining 'inferred', read-only nature, output format, or potential constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, concise but lacks structure. Could front-load key behavioral details, but does not waste words.
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 output schema, no annotations, and a single undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'inferred' means nor what the tool returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no description for includeRefs). The tool description does not explain the parameter's meaning or effect, leaving it ambiguous.
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 inferred category/room metadata, using a specific verb (list) and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like upsert 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 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 like category creation or deletion tools. No mention of context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not reveal any behavioral traits such as whether the mutation requires confirmation, auditability, or dry-run support. Annotations are absent, so the description should compensate, but it fails to mention that the tool is destructive or that it requires explicit confirm flags.
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 short sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.
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 (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, side effects, or how the admin controls work. An agent would need to infer too much from the ambiguous description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 60% schema description coverage, the description should clarify parameter roles, but it does not mention required parameters like username and domain or explain the importance of password, email, or riskLevel.
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 ('Create') and resource ('user account'), and indicates the context ('through admin controls'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update, delete, and list by focusing on creation. However, it does not specify if the user is an admin user or a regular user, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 set_role or update. There are no prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or context about the required confirm or maintenanceWindowId parameters. The agent has no help deciding between similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieve' implying a read-only, idempotent operation, but does not confirm no side effects, mention authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.
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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and non-redundant, but could benefit from slightly more detail while remaining concise.
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, output schema, and minimal description, the contextual completeness is low. An agent may not understand what 'control pair metadata' entails, or how to interpret the results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description clarifies that the 'refs' parameter refers to device references and that the tool returns metadata. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not explain the format or constraints of the refs array beyond the schema, leaving ambiguity about what constitutes a valid ref.
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 identifies the action as retrieving control pair metadata for device refs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hs4.devices.get and hs4.devices.status.get by specifying 'control pair metadata', making the purpose clear.
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 hs4.devices.get or hs4.devices.status.get. The description lacks any mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions filtering capabilities but fails to state that this is a read-only operation, describe pagination behavior (despite limit/offset parameters in schema), or indicate whether results are comprehensive. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or safety.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then specifies the key filters. It is concise with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from a brief mention of pagination parameters to improve structure 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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It omits return value details, pagination mechanics, and parameter constraints (e.g., limit defaults, maxDevices range). An agent would lack essential context to fully utilize the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for three parameters (location1/location2, interfaceName, capability) but ignores six others: limit, offset, includeRaw, maxDevices, includeControls. Without these semantics, an agent cannot correctly use parameters like pagination or raw data inclusion. The coverage is partial and leaves critical 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 ('List'), the resource ('HS4 devices'), and specifies three filter dimensions (location, interface, capability). This provides a clear purpose and distinguishes it from general listing. However, it could be more explicit about how it differs from sibling tools like hs4.devices.get or hs4.resolve.devices.
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 such as hs4.devices.get (likely fetching a single device) or hs4.resolve.devices. The description does not list any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'list' which implies read-only, but does not disclose behavior such as pagination, maximum limit, or whether filters are case-sensitive. No mention of side effects or performance.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Concise and direct, but could benefit from structuring parameter details separately.
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 output schema, incomplete parameter descriptions, and lack of behavioral transparency, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities and usage constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'group/name filters' which loosely map to groupContains and nameContains, but does not explain the meaning of limit, nor specify that nameContains filters by partial match. The parameter semantics are incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'list' and resource 'HS4 events', and mentions optional filters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hs4.events.get (likely single event) and hs4.events.run, though it doesn't specify the scope of events listed.
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 like hs4.events.get or hs4.events.run. Lacks context for preferred 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Delete', but does not mention that this is a mutating admin operation, the need for confirm or maintenanceWindowId, or what happens on deletion (e.g., irreversible? cascading effects?). The description is insufficient for safe autonomous invocation.
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, which is efficient but lacks informative structure. There is no wasted text, but it also fails to leverage the space to add context; front-loading is minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 10 parameters, two required, and is an admin mutation with no output schema. The description provides none of the operational context needed (e.g., dry-run capability, risk levels, change-ticket requirements). It is too brief to enable correct use in complex workflows.
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 high (90%), so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but that is acceptable given the coverage; thus baseline score 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?
Description clearly states the action 'Delete' and the resource 'camera config', making the primary purpose evident. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like update or create, missing an opportunity to reduce 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 (e.g., update or disable), nor are prerequisites or recommended scenarios mentioned. The description lacks usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states 'list' (read operation) but does not disclose permissions, output format, pagination, or behavior of the includeRaw parameter. Minimal behavioral insight.
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?
Single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with key action. However, it omits details that could be added without significant length increase. Still, no unnecessary verbiage.
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 optional param, no output schema), the description still fails to explain return values or parameter behavior. Agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter (includeRaw). Description adds no explanation of what 'raw' means or how the parameter affects results. Agent has no semantic understanding of 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?
Description clearly states verb ('List'), resource ('camera configuration state'), and scope ('admin namespace'). Distinguishes from siblings like hs4.cameras.list (lists cameras, not config) and hs4.admin.config.categories.list (different resource).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternative list tools (e.g., hs4.cameras.list) or related config tools. Agent is left without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks details about behavioral traits. It does not explain that this is a mutating operation requiring confirm=true, the dry-run simulation option, or the need for maintenanceWindowId. The description fails to compensate for the absence of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only one sentence, which is too sparse for a complex tool with 11 parameters and safety mechanisms (e.g., dryRun, confirm). It does not front-load critical information, making it under-specified rather than concise.
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?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, admin mutation with safety workflows, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It omits essential context about the mutating workflow, required fields like maintenanceWindowId for non-dry-run, and the fact that domain must be 'config'. Sibling tools are present but not referenced.
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 82%, so most parameters are described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description does not enhance understanding of 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 verb 'Create or update' and the resource 'category', with the context 'through admin controls'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like hs4.admin.config.categories.list and hs4.admin.config.category.delete.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list or delete), nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios where this tool should not be used.
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 present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely says 'Add an interface' without clarifying permissions, side effects, or whether the operation is destructive. This is tautological and lacks 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 sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity; conciseness should not come at the expense of clarity.
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?
Given the complexity (12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is extremely brief. It lacks information on return values, prerequisites, or common usage patterns, making it inadequate for effective 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?
Schema description coverage is 75%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the tool's name; it doesn't clarify how to use parameters like 'domain', 'dryRun', or 'settings' in the context of adding an interface.
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 'Add an interface through admin controls', which specifies the action (add) and resource (interface). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update, remove, restart, and diagnostics.
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. Sibling tools such as update, remove, restart, and diagnostics exist, but the description gives no context or criteria for choosing 'add' over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose that this is a mutating operation requiring safety checks. It does not mention dry-run, confirmation, or other behavioral aspects even though the schema includes such parameters.
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?
Single sentence is concise, but it lacks structure and does not front-load critical information like the need for confirmation or dry-run.
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 (11 parameters, admin context), the description is too minimal. It omits details about safety parameters, required fields, and any output behavior.
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 high (82%), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool applies system-level config settings through admin controls, differentiating it from the getter sibling. However, it is generic and could specify that it modifies key-value pairs.
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 like get or other admin tools. No prerequisites or context about admin privileges are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It only says 'Set', implying a mutation, but omits critical traits: whether it overwrites or merges, side effects, permission requirements, or idempotency. The schema hints at safety features (dryRun, confirm) but the description ignores them.
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 sentence with no redundancy or wasted words. It efficiently states the core action, though it could incorporate more context without losing 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 tool has 12 parameters, no output schema, and complex safety mechanisms (dryRun, confirm, riskLevel, maintenanceWindow), the one-line description is insufficient. It does not explain the mutation's impact, prerequisites, or return behavior, 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 75% (9 of 12 params have descriptions). The description adds no extra parameter context beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 since the schema already documents most parameters adequately, but the description fails to explain relationships or constraints not in 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 states the verb 'Set' and resource 'device metadata property' via 'admin controls', clearly specifying the action and context. However, it does not differentiate from sibling admin config tools like hs4.admin.config.category.upsert or hs4.admin.system.config.set, missing an opportunity to clarify 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, such as other admin config mutation tools (e.g., hs4.admin.config.category.upsert). There are no use-case examples, preconditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits: what happens during restart, any disruption to services, required permissions, or need for maintenance windows. The schema hints at risks via parameters like riskLevel and confirm, but the description does not elaborate.
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 sentence, achieving high conciseness with no superfluous words. However, it may be too brief for a tool with 10 parameters, lacking structure to guide the agent effectively.
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 complexity (10 params, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It omits details like whether the restart is safe, requires dry run, or what the outcome is. The sibling context shows other admin tools, but this description does not leverage that for 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 high (90%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond parameter names and types already documented in the schema, but does not contradict or confuse.
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 'Restart' and the resource 'interface', indicating a specific action on a specific entity. It is concise and unambiguous, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like hs4.admin.plugins.restart, though the resource name does.
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 diagnostics or update, nor any prerequisites, when not to use, or impact. The description lacks any context about appropriate 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update an interface' without mentioning safety mechanisms (dry-run, confirm, maintenance windows) or potential side effects. The description lacks transparency about operation behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and direct. It front-loads the purpose. However, it is too minimal and could include key parameter context 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 tool's complexity (12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the update process, required fields beyond interfaceId and domain, or what the tool returns. Lacks completeness for effective 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?
Schema description coverage is high (75%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional context beyond the schema, but it does not need to when the schema is already descriptive. No improvement or degradation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('interface'), but it is generic and does not specify which aspects of an interface can be updated. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add or remove, but lacks detail.
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 vs. alternatives such as hs4.admin.interfaces.add or hs4.admin.interfaces.restart. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention destructive consequences, confirmation requirements, or the existence of safety mechanisms like dryRun and confirm parameters. Removal implications (e.g., data loss, service impact) are omitted.
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?
While the description is extremely concise (5 words), it sacrifices necessary details. It is appropriately front-loaded but fails to earn its place by providing minimal value beyond the name. A sentence slightly longer with key behavioral notes would improve it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 10 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits context about prerequisites (e.g., maintenance window, change tickets), expected side effects, and the role of dryRun/confirm. Sibling tools suggest a rich administrative context not addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 90% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds zero additional meaning beyond the schema. No parameter guidance, validation notes, or usage tips are provided, falling short of the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Remove', the resource 'plugin', and the context 'through admin controls'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like install, update, set_enabled, and restart.
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 hs4.admin.plugins.set_enabled or hs4.admin.plugins.restart. No scenarios or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'start a system backup workflow' but omits important details like the need for confirmation, risk level, or that it triggers a mutation, which are implied by the schema but not communicated in the description.
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 is appropriately front-loaded and easy 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?
Given the absence of an output schema and the complexity of a backup workflow (11 parameters), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the tool's effects, prerequisites, or what happens after initiation, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 82%, so most parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.
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 starts a system backup workflow, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like restore.start, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other backup-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as restore.start or other admin tools. The agent must 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it restarts a service via admin controls, implying a mutating operation, but does not describe consequences (e.g., downtime, dependency impacts), required permissions, or whether the action is reversible. The description is insufficient for a potentially destructive 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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No extraneous information is present, and it fulfills its role efficiently.
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 (10 parameters, admin mutation with risk/confirm fields), the description is too minimal. It does not explain key parameters like confirm, maintenanceWindowId, or riskLevel, nor does it address return values (no output schema). The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand 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 90%, so most parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional context beyond the schema, but is not needed to compensate. Baseline 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 ('Restart') and resource ('an HS4 service'), indicating it is an admin operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling restart tools like hs4.admin.plugins.restart or hs4.admin.interfaces.restart, which could cause confusion about which service is being restarted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., plugins.restart or interfaces.restart). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should compensate. It does not disclose that this is a mutating operation requiring confirmation, nor does it mention dry-run capability or potential side effects. The only behavioral hint is the tool name 'pan'.
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 sentence, efficient and to-the-point. It loses one point for the slightly jargon-heavy 'pancamera endpoint' which could be simplified.
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 mutating tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks context on required permissions, return value, expected behavior, and relation to other camera tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema. It does not explain direction enum values or the role of confirm/dryRun.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it's a pan/tilt command for a camera via a specific endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like snapshots or config. However, the term 'pancamera endpoint' is somewhat jargonish and could be clearer.
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 vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, permissions, or when not to use (e.g., if camera is not pan/tilt capable).
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 'guarded mutation' and 'two-phase execution' but fails to disclose side effects, authorization needs, token expiration, or what happens if the commit is not called.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks necessary detail, making it insufficient for effective use. It could be expanded while maintaining 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 two-phase commit protocol and the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter explanations, the description is inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool and handle the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (`toolName`, `args`, `summary`). The agent cannot infer what values to provide or how they relate to the guarded mutation.
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: preparing a guarded mutation and returning a commit token for two-phase execution. This distinguishes it from siblings like `hs4.change.commit`, which presumably commits the prepared mutation.
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 a two-phase execution pattern, suggesting it is used before `hs4.change.commit`. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool is 'powerful' but does not detail side effects, authorization requirements, or whether it modifies system state. The input schema includes a 'confirm' parameter hinting at mutability, but the description adds minimal 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 extremely concise with two sentences, no superfluous words, and the first sentence directly states the 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 the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It warns about power but fails to explain return values, error conditions, typical usage patterns, or how it differs from similar tools like hs4.events.run or hs4.plugins.function.call.
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 80%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific information, thus meets 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 'Run a HomeSeer script command through runscript.html action handler,' specifying the verb 'Run' and resource 'HomeSeer script command.' It is distinct from sibling tools that focus on devices, events, or admin actions.
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 advises that the tool 'should be tightly allowlisted in production' due to its power, but does not specify when to use it versus alternatives or provide explicit context for its invocation.
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, description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only says 'read-only' but lacks details on effects of the parameter, required permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded and 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 the tool has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should be more informative. It lacks details on return values, typical use cases, and behavioral nuances.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the sole parameter 'includeResolverRefresh' or its impact, adding no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Run'), the resource ('self-test matrix'), and emphasizes 'read-only'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like hs4.health.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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'delete', which implies mutation, but does not explain side effects, reversibility, or confirmation requirements (despite the schema having confirm, dryRun, etc.). No mention of auditability or required change tickets.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks an introductory summary or structured details. It is not verbose, but it could be more informative without becoming long.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not cover return values, error conditions, or usage context. Sibling tools are diverse, but no guidance is provided on how this tool fits into workflows (e.g., using hs4.change.prepare first).
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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain the meaning of key parameters like eventId, name, or group, which lack descriptions in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete'), the resource ('event definition'), and the context ('through admin controls'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hs4.admin.events.create, hs4.admin.events.update, and non-admin event tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other event mutation tools or disabling events). It does not mention prerequisites, such as required admin privileges or that it should only be used for permanent removal versus temporary disablement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It indicates a read-only operation ('Read') but does not confirm safety, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description is minimally transparent, stating only 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 extremely concise at nine words, front-loading the core purpose. However, its brevity sacrifices necessary detail about parameters and output. Still, it is well-formed and easy 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?
Given the lack of output schema and the single parameter, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results. It omits important context like the scope of 'system-level configuration state' and the effect of the boolean parameter. This leaves the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the parameter 'includeStatusSummary' or its effect. The agent receives no additional meaning beyond the parameter name and type. This is a significant gap.
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 'Read' and the resource 'system-level configuration state', with context 'through the admin namespace.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hs4.admin.system.config.set (write) and other admin 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 does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools for similar actions. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'controlled system shutdown' but does not explain what 'controlled' entails (e.g., grace period, dry-run capability, confirmation requirement). The schema indicates parameters like dryRun, confirm, and graceSeconds, but these behaviors are not mentioned in the description, leaving the agent unaware of safety mechanisms.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but at the expense of completeness. It is front-loaded but too brief for a complex operation. It could be improved by adding more details without becoming verbose.
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 (10 parameters, destructive action, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, safety precautions, or prerequisites beyond what the schema provides. The tool is a critical admin operation and needs more contextual information to be fully useful.
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 90% (9 out of 10 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since coverage is high, baseline is 3, and no additional value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Issue a controlled system shutdown') and the resource ('system through admin controls'). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools include other admin system operations like backup, restore, and service restart, so this tool is 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring a dry-run first, or when not to use it (e.g., if a service restart is more appropriate). The sibling tools list includes other system operations, but no differentiation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, authentication needs, confirmation requirements, or the dry-run capability implied by the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it lacks structure such as headings or bullet points that could improve readability for complex tools with many parameters.
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 11 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not cover return values, error scenarios, or relationships with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 82%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, thus not improving understanding of parameter meanings.
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 is to set the role for a user account, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hs4.admin.users.update by focusing on role assignment.
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 hs4.admin.users.update or when not to use it. Prerequisites, context, and exclusions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as whether updates are partial or complete, required confirmation, audit fields, and side effects. It only mentions 'through admin controls'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but insufficient for a complex 15-parameter tool. It lacks structure and front-loading.
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 (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. Fails to explain mutation semantics, required fields, or audit requirements.
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 60%, so the schema already documents many parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing user account', and it distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, and set_role.
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 vs. alternatives like set_role, or prerequisites like admin privileges. The description is too generic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'set a camera recording state'. It does not mention that this is a mutation requiring confirm, changeTicket, or maintenanceWindowId, nor does it describe side effects, permission requirements, or audit implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 10 words, with no redundancy. It is concise and directly to the point, earning a high score for minimalism.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 12 parameters, no output schema, and is a high-stakes admin mutation. The description omits return values, error cases, and the need for confirmation or maintenance windows, leaving the agent underinformed about operational 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?
The input schema already describes 75% of parameters, including const for domain and descriptions for most fields. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'set' and the resource 'camera recording state' with scope 'admin controls'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hs4.cameras.list or hs4.admin.cameras.config.update, focusing on recording state rather than other camera 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 like hs4.admin.cameras.config.update or hs4.cameras.pan. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'delete', a destructive action, but omits details like required confirm flag, side effects, or permissions. Minimal 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence with verb first. Efficient, but could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. Missing details on required fields (e.g., changeTicket, maintenanceWindowId) and operational behavior (dry run, confirm).
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 high (90%), so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline requirement.
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), resource (category), and context (admin controls). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like upsert (create/update) and list.
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 like hs4.admin.config.category.upsert or list. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios 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 bears full responsibility. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, side effects, or that it is a mutating operation (beyond the name). The schema hints at safety mechanisms (dryRun, confirm), but the description omits this.
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, concise sentence. It is front-loaded but lacks detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool but insufficient for the complexity here.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite high complexity (12 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description is extremely minimal. It does not explain what a definition is, required parameters, return values, or how safety features like dryRun work.
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 75%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, and the uncovered parameters (name, group, definition) are not addressed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'event definition' via 'admin controls', distinguishing it from sibling tools like hs4.admin.events.update and hs4.admin.events.delete.
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 (e.g., hs4.events.list or hs4.admin.events.update). The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'remove' without disclosing behavioral traits such as permission requirements, reversibility, impact on dependent entities, or the need for confirmation (despite confirm and maintenanceWindowId parameters in the schema).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise, though slightly under-informative given 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?
For a tool with 10 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits critical context such as the need for maintenance window, change ticket, and risk classification, leaving the agent underinformed.
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 high (90%), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain any parameters or their roles.
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 'Remove an interface through admin controls' clearly states the verb (remove) and resource (interface), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like hs4.admin.interfaces.add, update, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update or restart). The description lacks any when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., temporary downtime, configuration reload), safety considerations, or the requirement for confirmation. Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility.
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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks sufficient detail. It does not explain the full behavior, return values, or the role of critical parameters like confirm, dryRun, or maintenanceWindowId.
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 82%, meaning most parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what is in the schema, so 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Restart a plugin through admin controls,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like install, update, remove, and set_enabled, which cover different 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 (e.g., when to restart versus update or enable/disable). There is no mention of prerequisites 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the core function without mentioning side effects (e.g., plugin restart), permission requirements, or the effect of parameters like dryRun and confirm. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient 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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, but could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.
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 (11 parameters, mutation with change-control params like dryRun, confirm, maintenanceWindowId) and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the audit/validation workflow or the significance of required fields like 'domain'.
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 high description coverage (82%), so the schema already explains most parameters. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Enable or disable a plugin' with the context 'through admin controls'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like install, update, remove, and restart, which perform different plugin lifecycle 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 does not mention prerequisites, when-not to use, or suggest other tools for related tasks. Given many sibling admin plugin tools, this lack of guidance reduces clarity for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It omits critical traits: that a system restore is likely destructive, requires confirmation and maintenance window, and involves side effects. The schema hints at safety parameters (confirm, dryRun) but the description does not surface them.
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 sentence with no wasted words. However, given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose. Still, it earns high marks for being concise.
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 system-level tool with many parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the restore workflow, what happens upon invocation, expected outcomes, or how to safely use it. The schema covers parameters but the overall process is opaque.
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 82%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond repeating the action. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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 identifies the action ('Start') and the resource ('system restore workflow'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hs4.admin.system.backup.start (backup vs restore) and other admin operations. The verb-resource combination is specific and 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hs4.admin.system.backup.start, hs4.admin.system.config.set, or hs4.admin.system.service.restart. No prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or workflow context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions deletion but does not disclose irreversibility, required confirmations (like the confirm parameter), or the effect of the hardDelete parameter. The description lacks essential behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, efficiently conveying the main purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary detail 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?
With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, side effects, or the need for parameters like confirm, maintenanceWindowId, or changeTicket, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (82%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, providing no extra semantic value; 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 action (delete) and the resource (user account) with the context (admin controls). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create, update, list, and set_role.
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, no prerequisites, and no conditions for use. It simply states the action without any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden but provides no behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the commit is irreversible, what permissions are needed, or any side effects, which is critical for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (5 words), but may be too terse. It lacks structure and leaves out important details, though for a simple tool it is not overly verbose.
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 commit operation with no output schema and one parameter, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the behavior, risks, or return value, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use it safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds context by linking the token to 'previously prepared', but does not describe the token's format, origin, or that it 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 action ('Commit') and the resource ('previously prepared mutation token'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like hs4.change.prepare by implying a two-step process.
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 after a prepare step ('previously prepared'), but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives 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 exist, leaving the description to cover behavioral traits. It only states 'Resolve likely camera IDs' without disclosing side effects, safety, or expected output format. Minimal 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?
A single sentence with no wasted words. Efficient and front-loaded.
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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks details on output format, edge cases, and behavior, making it incomplete for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only implies the 'query' parameter via 'natural-language query' but ignores 'limit' and 'includeEvidence', leaving significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool resolves camera IDs from a natural-language query, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'hs4.resolve.devices' and 'hs4.cameras.list'.
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. No mention of prerequisites or context for resolving camera IDs. The agent is left to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool reads and normalizes, implying read-only and non-destructive behavior. However, it does not clarify what 'normalize' entails, performance considerations, or whether it affects any state. More behavioral details would improve clarity.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and specifies the resource. It is efficient but could benefit from briefly listing that parameters are available for identifying the event.
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 output schema, no annotations, and 5 parameters with no documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use the parameters (e.g., which combination is required) or what the output looks like. A more detailed description is needed for this complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the burden is on the description to explain the parameters (id, name, group, includeRaw, resolveDeviceRefs). None are mentioned, leaving the AI agent without context on their roles.
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 reads and normalizes full event definitions from persisted HS4 event files, mentioning triggers/actions/conditions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hs4.events.list and hs4.events.get by specifying 'full event definitions' and 'normalize'.
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 one needs to read full event definitions, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hs4.events.get or hs4.events.list. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must stand alone. While it implies a safe read-only operation, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or discuss potential side effects like authentication requirements.
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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. No redundant words.
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 health check with no output schema, the description provides the key aspects checked. However, it lacks detail on the format or structure of the response, which might be needed for programmatic 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?
There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds value by specifying what aspects the tool checks, which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks connectivity, auth status, and runtime metrics, which is a specific health check. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool 'hs4.selftest.run', which might also assess system health.
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 over alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use this health check versus running a self-test or other diagnostic 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only states routing to a 'safest recommended' workflow without explaining how safety is determined, what actions the tool performs, or any side effects. Significant gaps remain.
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 (one sentence, 15 words). However, it lacks structure like bullet points or paragraphs to separate key information. It earns points for brevity but loses for not organizing 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 tool has 2 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, a single sentence is insufficient. The description does not cover expected output, parameter details, or safety behavior, leaving an agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must add meaning for the parameters 'goal' and 'mode'. However, it provides no additional context about what 'goal' should contain or how 'mode' affects behavior. The parameter names and enums are self-explanatory but insufficient.
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: routing a natural-language goal to the safest recommended tool workflow. It uses a specific verb ('route') and resource ('goal'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform specific actions.
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 high-level goals needing routing, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The 'safest' qualifier hints at safety context, but no concrete guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description partially covers behavior by mentioning post-write verification and auto-fallback. However, it omits important details such as required permissions, side effects, error handling, and idempotency, which are critical for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with core functionality. However, it could be restructured to more clearly separate mode behavior and parameter hints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for reliable invocation. It omits how to construct requests, handle errors, and interpret results, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 40% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal parameter meaning. It mentions 'control value' and 'set_status' relating to mode, but does not explain the majority of parameters (ref, value, source, verify, statusText). This leaves significant ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets a device state, with two modes (control_value and set_status) and mentions post-write verification. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hs4.devices.get or hs4.devices.status.get by being the mutation tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes that control_value is preferred and mentions auto-fallback, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like hs4.intent.device_set_by_name. There is no when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Minimal disclosure: implies read-only but doesn't specify permissions or scope. No annotations to supplement; description is adequate for a simple list 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?
Single sentence, no fluff, directly states 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?
Adequate for a zero-parameter tool, but lacks specifics on the metadata format. Could be more complete but not seriously deficient.
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?
No parameters, schema coverage 100%. Description adds no parameter details, but baseline applies due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'list' and specific resource 'installed HS4 plugins' with details about returned metadata, distinguishing from sibling admin plugin tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other plugin-related siblings like hs4.admin.plugins.catalog.get or hs4.admin.plugins.install.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, result scope, or pagination. The burden is on the description but it only states 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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary and there is no waste.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. However, it is somewhat incomplete given the many camera-related sibling tools; it could clarify what 'configured' means (e.g., all cameras vs. a subset).
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 no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter 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 verb 'list' and resource 'configured HS4 cameras'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like hs4.cameras.snapshot.get and hs4.cameras.pan.
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 (e.g., admin camera config tools). The description lacks context about prerequisites 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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the execution is synchronous, what side effects occur, or any error conditions. The presence of 'dryRun' and 'confirm' fields hints at mutation but is not explained in the description.
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 one sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error handling, or what happens after the event runs, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 description adds meaning by explaining that 'id' alone or 'group+name' can be used, which is not explicit in the schema. Schema coverage is moderate (57%), and the description compensates partially for the parameters without descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'run' and resource 'HS4 event', and specifies two identification methods (by id or by group+name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hs4.events.list or hs4.events.get.
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 when to use it (to run an event) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like hs4.intent.event_run_by_name (which is a different invocation approach).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions the inclusion of raw definition fields conditionally, which adds behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The agent is left uncertain about safety and 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, 16-word sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key behavior. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy.
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 get tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality. However, it lacks details on parameter options (e.g., what happens if both id and group/name are supplied), error handling, and the structure of the response. This is adequate but not thorough.
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 meaning to id, name, and group as lookup keys, and hints at includeRaw via 'raw definition fields when available.' However, it does not explicitly explain the includeRaw parameter or its default value. With 0% schema coverage, the description should fully compensate but falls short.
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 a single HS4 event by id or exact group+name, and includes raw definition fields when available. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like hs4.events.list, hs4.events.definition.get, and hs4.events.run.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that the event can be fetched by id or by combination of group and name, which gives agents two clear methods. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer one over the other or when alternatives (e.g., hs4.events.list) are better suited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-hs4 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dmanfx/mcp-hs4/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dmanfx/mcp-hs4)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-hs4 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dmanfx/mcp-hs4/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dmanfx/mcp-hs4)

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/dmanfx/mcp-hs4'

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