Laravel MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is overlap between envInfo/envInfoSafe and between migrationAnalyzer/schema for inspecting database structure. The three generators (crudGenerator, createFeature, apiGenerator) also have similar scopes, though descriptions clarify differences.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names use inconsistent patterns: some are camelCase verbs (runTest, makeModel), some are noun-first (envInfo, configGet), some are single nouns (artisan, model, log), and some are compound names (migrationAnalyzer, crudGenerator). No consistent verb_noun convention.
Tool Count3/5
23 tools is on the heavy side; while each has a purpose, the server covers many development workflows, making it borderline but manageable. Not excessive enough for a 2, but more than the typical well-scoped server.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers a wide range of Laravel tasks: environment info, migrations, schema inspection, code generation, testing, debugging, and project context. Minor gaps like missing seeding/rollback commands can be worked around via artisan, so not severely incomplete.
Average 3.6/5 across 23 of 23 tools scored. Lowest: 3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 50 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description must disclose behavioral aspects. It only says 'Create a new controller class' without mentioning file system changes, overwrite risks, or that it may scaffold additional files. This is insufficient for an AI agent to assess side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler words. It is perfectly front-loaded and to the point.
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 four parameters and no annotations or output schema, yet the description only states its core purpose. It omits context about the generated controller's structure, the meaning of the API/resource flags in practice, and any side effects, making it incomplete for an agent's decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information, relying entirely on 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 that the tool creates a new controller class, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like makeModel and makeMigration, which create different artifacts.
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 crudGenerator or apiGenerator. It lacks any context about required prerequisites or recommended 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 carries full burden but only says 'clear all caches' and 'cache config/routes for performance.' It does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or whether operations are reversible. The destructive nature of clearing is inherent but not explicitly stated.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key operations. No wasted words; every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all six enum actions in aggregate: 'clear all caches' can encompass clear, configClear, routeClear, and viewClear, while 'cache config/routes' includes configCache and routeCache. However, it lacks details about return values or operation nuances, but for a simple tool with complete schema, it is adequate with minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'action' parameter with a clear enum. The description adds performance context for caching operations but does not detail each enum value. It meets the baseline without adding substantial semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool manages Laravel caches and specifies 'clear all caches' and 'cache config/routes for performance', which covers the main actions and distinguishes it from generic artisan tools. The verb 'manage' is broad but the specifics make 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'artisan' or 'configGet'. It does not state when to prefer cache operations here or mention any exclusions, leaving usage largely implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits such as filesystem changes, permissions required, or whether the migration is executed. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded, and zero waste. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
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?
Minimal description lacking context about side effects, preconditions, or alternatives. No output schema to compensate. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter described (e.g., name, table, create). The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 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 states 'Create a new migration file' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like migrationAnalyzer and migrateStatus by indicating it creates, not analyzes or checks.
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 you need a migration file) but provides no explicit context, when-not-to-use guidance, or mention of alternatives like artisan or makeModel. It is a single sentence without guidance beyond the basic purpose.
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 fails to disclose that this creates files on disk, potential overwrites, or that boolean options generate additional classes. 'Create' implies mutation but lacks side-effect disclosure.
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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the action. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary 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?
Despite clean schema coverage, the description gives no behavioral context (e.g., file system effects, optional flags). Without annotations or an output schema, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate tool impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, hence the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new Eloquent model class' uses a specific verb (create) and resource (Eloquent model class), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like makeController or makeMigration.
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 exclusions. It only states the basic action without 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?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that files are generated (migration, model, controller, routes, tests) but does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, whether routes are appended, or if any prerequisites (e.g., an existing Laravel project) are required. This is a significant gap for a mutating code-generation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action ('Generate REST API') and lists the key deliverables. There is no wasted content; every phrase adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain when to use this generator over siblings like crudGenerator, nor does it mention important context such as whether migrations are run automatically or how the generated code integrates with existing project structure. The schema covers parameters, but the description lacks surrounding context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, but it does list the overall output artifacts, which indirectly relates to how fields and entity might be used. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('REST API for a Laravel entity'), listing the components produced (migration, model, API controller, routes, tests). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crudGenerator, but its scope is clear enough to be understood.
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 you need to generate a REST API for an entity—but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crudGenerator or makeModel. No exclusions or alternative references are given, so the guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists what files will be generated, which is useful, but it omits critical details such as whether existing files are overwritten, whether database migrations are run, what permissions are required, or what the output/return value looks like. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise, has no filler, and every word contributes to the meaning, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex tool that generates multiple artifacts, yet the description only lists those artifacts without explaining prerequisites, side effects, or execution behavior. There is no output schema, so the description should provide more context to fully prepare the agent for invocation. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for such a multi-step generator.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter's meaning. The description does not add any extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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 the tool's action ('Generate') and the resource ('complete Laravel feature') with an enumerated list of components (migration, model, controller, requests, routes, blade views, tests). This specific scope differentiates it from sibling tools like makeModel or makeController, which focus on single components.
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 this is for generating a full feature rather than a single component, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tool names or 'when-not' guidance is given, so the usage context is only implicit.
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 the burden of disclosing behavior. It accurately states that the tool lists routes, implying a read-only operation, but does not describe output format, filtering semantics, or any potential side effects. This is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks richer behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and filtering ability. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or fluff. The omission of 'method' is a minor content issue, not a conciseness issue.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, a full output schema is absent, but the description covers the primary function and filtering orientation. The schema compensates for the missing 'method' mention. Overall, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role, though it could be enhanced by noting it reads route definitions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (uri, name, method), so the schema already provides the necessary meaning. The description only mentions 'name or URI' and omits 'method', adding no additional semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Laravel routes'), and clearly states the filtering capability. It differentiates this tool from sibling tools like 'migrateStatus' or 'configGet' by its focus on routes, though it omits the 'method' filter from the prose, making it slightly incomplete.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies its use by describing what it does, but there are no usage scenarios, exclusions, or mentions of sibling tools such as 'artisan' or 'schema'. This falls short of even clear contextual usage 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that stdout and stderr are returned, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects or destructiveness of artisan commands, which is a significant omission for a tool that runs arbitrary commands.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The verb is front-loaded and the return behavior is stated efficiently.
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 one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but lacks context about when to use it over the many sibling tools and about the potential risks of running arbitrary artisan commands. It would benefit from a note that this is a generic fallback for commands without dedicated tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the parameter fully with a description and examples. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it runs a Laravel artisan command, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that target specific artisan commands (migrateStatus, routeList, etc.) by being the generic runner.
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 generic runner versus the many specialized sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or fallback scenarios, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Show' indicating a read-only operation, which is transparent. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like establishing a database connection to check status, nor does it mention any failure modes.
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 efficiently lists the key information shown. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource. Zero waste is present.
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, parameterless tool, the description reasonably covers the key outputs (APP_ENV, APP_DEBUG, database connection status). However, it lacks any mention of when to prefer this over 'envInfoSafe', and since there is no output schema, the exact return format is unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. The baseline is 4 because there is no need to compensate for undocumented parameters. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool does rather than how to configure it.
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 shows Laravel environment info including specific variables and database status. It has a specific verb ('Show') and resource, but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'envInfoSafe' which may have a similar 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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'envInfoSafe' or other environment-related commands. The description implies general usage for checking environment info but lacks explicit 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states it parses and extracts, implying a read-only operation, but it does not mention limitations (e.g., standard Laravel migration syntax only), output format, whether it scans the whole project, or any side effects. The info is too shallow for an agent to fully predict behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, efficient sentence that fully states the tool's purpose without filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (zero params, no nested schema), so the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks details about output structure. Without an output schema, the description should mention what format the extracted schema takes (e.g., array of table definitions, JSON), and any constraints on which migration files are analyzed. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, as the description does not need to compensate for undocumented inputs.
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 uses a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('Laravel migration files'), and clearly states the extraction of database schema elements (columns, types, foreign keys). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like migrateStatus or schema by focusing on parsing migration files rather than running or reporting migrations.
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 schema, migrateStatus, and makeMigration could overlap, but the description does not mention any exclusions or alternative recommendations. The user must infer usage from the name and 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 for disclosing side effects, output, and execution details. It only states the action 'run tests' without mentioning whether tests could mutate data, how results are returned, or any environmental prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a tool that could have side effects during test execution.
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 is front-loaded with the primary action and includes the key optional filter aspect. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly minimal but still lacks important context such as what the command returns (e.g., pass/fail output) or any side effects on the test environment. It is adequate for a simple tool but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides a descriptive comment for the filter parameter, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds a high-level mention of 'optional filter' but no further semantic detail beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs PHPUnit tests, using a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('PHPUnit tests'). It also mentions the optional filter capability, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like artisan or migrateStatus that perform different tasks.
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 the tool should be used when running PHPUnit tests, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like artisan or when not to use it. The optional filter hint is the only contextual usage clue, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. Using 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is safe, but the description does not explicitly deny side effects or mention behavior like returning null for missing keys. This is adequate for a simple getter but not rich.
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 includes the tool's purpose and examples. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and gives meaningful examples. It lacks mention of error cases or return values, but these are not essential for this simple getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes the 'key' parameter with dot notation. The description adds examples, which reinforce the format but do not introduce new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets a Laravel config value by key, with specific examples ('app.name', 'database.default'). This is a specific verb+resource and effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on config key access.
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. Sibling tools like envInfo or routeList exist, but the description does not mention when configGet would be preferred or when another tool should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions optional execution but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or the nature of execution—critical for a tool that can modify code. The vagueness of 'optionally execute' leaves significant safety information uncovered.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes, with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that can execute development plans, the description is under-specified. It lacks context about execution consequences, output format, or safety mechanisms. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate 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?
The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (request and dryRun), covering 100% of them. The description adds no extra parameter-specific detail, so it neither compensates for gaps nor enhances schema information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: parse natural language requests, generate an execution plan, and optionally execute it. This verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling generator tools that focus on specific artifacts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for natural language development requests, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, lacking direct comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states 'Scan' which suggests read-only, but does not mention whether it modifies anything, what output format to expect, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured metadata.
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, front-loaded, and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys what is scanned and includes representative file types.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (no params, no output schema), the description adequately explains the tool's purpose. However, it does not describe the return value or any output structure, which would be expected since there is no output schema to provide that information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers all with 100% coverage. The description adds context about the scope (views, JS, CSS files), which is helpful. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Scan') and a clear resource ('Laravel frontend structure') with examples ('views, JS, CSS files'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are all backend/artisan-oriented.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, but context signals imply it is the only frontend-focused tool among the siblings. The description gives a direct purpose, leaving usage scenarios to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation with no modifications, which is a basic signal, but the description does not explicitly disclose side effects, prerequisites like Composer being installed, or failure behaviors.
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 with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the action ('List') and clearly states the resource ('Laravel project dependencies'), making it optimally sized for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose; the schema handles parameter semantics. It does not describe the return value format, but this is not essential for a listing tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.
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?
Both parameters (dev and filter) have complete descriptions in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself adds no additional context about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, keeping the score at the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('Laravel project dependencies from composer.json and composer.lock'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like migrationAnalyzer or frontendScanner, which deal with different concerns.
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 the tool is for listing dependencies, but it does not specify when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions, such as when to include dev dependencies or how to leverage the filter option. No alternative tools are mentioned as appropriate or inappropriate.
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 the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool creates multiple files and runs tests, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing files, behavior if the entity already exists, or prerequisites such as Laravel project context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Generate full CRUD') and then lists deliverables. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler. Extremely concise and well structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a fairly complex tool, the description adequately covers the main artifacts and the test execution behavior. The schema fills parameter details. However, it lacks operational caveats like file overwrite behavior or environment expectations, which would make it more complete. Still, it's largely sufficient for a well-scoped tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes all three parameters with examples (100% coverage), so the description does not add significant parameter-level meaning. It only references 'entity' indirectly by listing components, which aligns with the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.
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 starts with 'Generate full CRUD for a Laravel entity' which is a specific verb and resource, and then enumerates the exact artifacts (migration, model, controller, request, route, test, and run tests). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like makeModel or makeController which handle individual components.
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 complete CRUD scaffolding via the phrase 'full CRUD', but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or mention any exclusions/alternatives. The context is implied rather than clearly delineated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the tool's read-only nature by stating 'View recent entries' and identifies the exact log file location, providing full transparency for a simple operation. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the burden and does so adequately, though it could add details about potential size limits or file-not-found behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that includes the essential file path. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant or filler content, earning the highest score.
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 log-viewing tool with one optional parameter, the description is sufficient: it states the purpose and file source, and the schema covers parameter details. No output schema is needed for this basic functionality. Minor caveats like error handling are not critical but could be added for full 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?
The input schema already describes the single optional 'lines' parameter with its default value (100) and meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate due to full 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 tool's purpose: to view recent entries from a specific Laravel log file. It uses the specific verb 'View' and names the resource with a concrete path (storage/logs/laravel.log), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like routeList, configGet, or model. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention comparisons with sibling tools or specific use cases, such as debugging exceptions or checking recent errors. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It states the tool retrieves context and lists the returned categories, but it does not disclose caching behavior (though the force parameter hints at it), authorization requirements, or performance characteristics. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states what the tool does and lists the key context components. There is no redundant information or fluff, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and the scope of returned information. It lacks explicit usage guidance, but it is otherwise sufficient for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the only parameter, force, including its purpose ('Force rebuild instead of using cache'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for full 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('comprehensive Laravel project context') and enumerates the content areas (version, models, routes, packages, structure). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects like routeList or envInfo.
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 a broad overview is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or mention of alternative tools, so the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently outlines the tool's actions: locate file, read context, diagnose common issues, and suggest fixes. This gives a clear picture of a read-only analysis workflow, even though it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Analyze') and the resource ('Laravel error'). It efficiently communicates the workflow in a compact format with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers what the tool does and hints at the output ('suggest fixes'). Since no output schema exists, the description helps set expectations, but it could be slightly more explicit about the response format. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an error-analysis tool with simple parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters (file and error) are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Analyze a Laravel error' with a specific verb and resource. It further details the workflow (locate file, read context, diagnose, suggest fixes), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like artisan or log that have different purposes.
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 the tool should be used when a Laravel error needs analysis, providing a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it lacks explicit usage exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, which is a meaningful behavioral cue, but the description does not state safety guarantees, permissions, or potential errors. It adds some transparency but lacks richness.
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, front-loaded sentence that effectively conveys the tool's purpose without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple two-action tool, the description covers the core functionality. It does not explicitly describe return values, but 'show column details' implies the output. With no output schema, this is adequate but leaves some nuance unspecified, such as the exact format of returned data or database connection 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?
The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'list all tables' and 'show column details' aligns with the enum values, adding minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('Laravel database schema'), and enumerates two specific actions (list tables, show columns). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like migrationAnalyzer, which analyze migrations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (when inspecting the Laravel database schema) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. It implies usage rather than explicitly naming sibling tools or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature and the key safety behavior of filtering sensitive values. However, it does not specify the output format or behavior if the environment file is missing, which would enhance transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the critical filtering behavior. There is no wasted text or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no annotations, this description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and its key safety filtering. However, without an output schema, a brief note on the return format (e.g., key-value pairs) would make it fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the description correctly adds no parameter details. This matches the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools, as the schema is trivially complete.
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 Laravel environment info, which is a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from the sibling envInfo tool by explicitly mentioning filtering out sensitive values like keys, passwords, and tokens.
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 safely reading environment info, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over envInfo or exclude scenarios. No alternative tool is named, leaving the agent to infer intent from the 'Safe' suffix.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verbs 'Show' and 'Lists' imply read-only behavior, but the description does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or mention any prerequisites like database connectivity. This is a common gap for read-only tools without annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, with the action front-loaded and no redundant text. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no parameters, no output schema, and is simple. The description explains both the purpose and the nature of the output (run/pending migrations), which is sufficient for this complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and fully covers parameter expectations; the description need not add parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Show' and identifies the resource 'Laravel migrations' with clear scope ('Lists which migrations have been run and which are pending'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like makeMigration or migrationAnalyzer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (checking migration status), but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools imply other migration-related operations, but no direct comparison is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact scanning approach and verification criteria, which implies read-only behavior and gives a clear expectation of what is returned. It does not explicitly state that no changes are made, but 'List' and the scanning language strongly imply a non-mutating 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, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and provides sufficient detail without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, earning a top score.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is remarkably complete: it names the target directory, the verification step, and the intended result. It does not describe return format, but that is not strictly necessary for a simple listing operation. It could go slightly further by clarifying recursive scanning or edge cases, but is not deficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for no parameters, and the description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist.
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 a specific verb ('List'), the resource ('Eloquent models in the Laravel application'), and the method ('scanning app/Models and verifying they extend Model'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like makeModel or envInfo, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it is for enumerating Eloquent models via a specific scan. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but for a simple read-only listing tool the purpose is self-evident and unlikely to be confused with other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

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

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

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cortex-agent-runtime MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dok4everak47/cortex-agent-runtime/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dok4everak47/cortex-agent-runtime)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cortex-agent-runtime MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dok4everak47/cortex-agent-runtime/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dok4everak47/cortex-agent-runtime)

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/dok4everak47/cortex-agent-runtime'

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