R2-D2
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.4.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Tools are largely distinct, each targeting a specific resource or action (search, lookup, collection, deck, game). Minor overlap exists between view_hand/view_board and get_game_state, and play_card vs take_game_action, but descriptions clarify the contexts.
Naming Consistency4/5All tools share the swu_ prefix and use snake_case, with most following a verb_noun pattern. A few exceptions like owned_count and collection_summary deviate from verb-first but remain readable and predictable.
Tool Count2/532 tools is above the 25+ threshold that indicates a bloated surface. While the scope covers card data, collection, deckbuilding, and gameplay, the count feels heavy and could be consolidated (e.g., combining game actions into a single action dispatcher).
Completeness4/5The tool set covers card search, collection management, deck analysis/generation, playtesting, and full game simulation thoroughly. Minor gaps exist (no direct single-card ownership update, no persistent deck save beyond export), but agents can work around them.
Average 3.5/5 across 32 of 32 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 56 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions the duration ('one turn or until it ends the turn') but does not state whether the tool mutates game state, whether it is a simulation, or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap for an operation that likely changes the game.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks structure and substantive content; it does not enumerate parameters or behavioral semantics. It is not verbose, but under-specification prevents a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations and a minimal description, leaving unclear what 'taking a turn' involves, how max_actions constrains the AI, and how this relates to other game-action tools. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but input semantics and behavioral context are incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides three parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. It does not clarify game_id, player_id, or max_actions, nor does it mention the default for player_id or the meaning of max_actions in the context of an AI turn.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description indicates a specific verb-resource pair: 'pilot' the AI's side for a turn. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like swu_take_game_action because it focuses on the AI's entire turn rather than a single action. However, 'pilot' is nonstandard and 'its side' is ambiguous without knowing the game context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 (e.g., an active game), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools such as swu_take_game_action or swu_simulate_game.
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 must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'update' without explaining side effects, whether the update replaces or accumulates values, failure conditions (e.g., card not in play), or any game-state impacts. The phrase 'while it is in play' hints at a condition but does not say what happens if violated. This is insufficient 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is easy to read and not verbose. Every word earns its place. However, it is arguably too brief given the tool's complexity, but as a standalone text it is appropriately sized for the limited information it conveys.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits how the card is identified (card_name, session_id), what 'zone' is used for, and what the output represents. Even with an output schema, the description fails to provide necessary context about the game state and the prerequisites for using this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. It mentions 'ready state and counters' which partially maps to ready/damage/shield/experience, but ignores zone, card_name, and session_id entirely. No parameter is explained beyond what its name suggests, and the mapping is vague. This leaves users guessing how to identify the card and configure the update.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Update a card's ready state and counters while it is in play.' It names the specific verb (update) and resource (card's ready state and counters), and the 'in play' scope differentiates it from sibling tools like play_card or move_card. However, 'counters' is slightly vague and could be more explicit about the specific parameter fields involved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies use while a card is in play, but does not explain prerequisites, e.g., that the card must exist, or contrast with sibling mutation tools like defeat_card or move_card. There is no 'when not to use' or alternative tool reference.
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 fails to disclose whether starting a game requires predefined decks, side effects on existing state, or what constitutes a 'game' (e.g., initial state, resource setup). The description only says 'start' without revealing consequences or prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is appropriately sized for a simple action. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, so while it is front-loaded with the verb, it omits necessary details. It earns its place only minimally.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the tool has 12 parameters and no annotations. The description is far too brief to cover the complexity of starting a game, including the meaning of parameters, required setup, or behavioral nuances. It is not complete enough for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 12 parameters, all optional with defaults, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention or explain any parameters, such as format_name, player_decklist, or starting_player. Since the description adds nothing to clarify these parameters, it completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Start' and the resource 'a two-player Star Wars Unlimited game between you and Claude.' It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like swu_simulate_game by explicitly naming the participants as 'you and Claude', indicating an interactive game rather than an automated simulation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as having decks or validated game state. It merely states the action without context. Sibling tools like swu_simulate_game exist but no differentiation or usage scenario is 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns legal actions but does not mention side effects (or lack thereof), error conditions, or any constraints like requiring an active game. The verb 'Return' hints at read-only behavior, but no further context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief for a simple getter tool. It could arguably be improved with a bit more context, but as a standalone statement it is clear and front-loaded. It does not waste any words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's parameters, lack of schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, usage context, or behavioral constraints. The existence of an output schema covers return values, but the description still leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does 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 does not explain the game_id or player_id parameters at all. The mention of 'a game' vaguely implies game_id, but there is no detail about what player_id means or its default behavior. The description adds no semantic value to the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('currently legal actions for the active player in a game'). It distinctly identifies the tool's function and naturally differentiates it from sibling tools like swu_take_game_action or swu_get_game_state by focusing on legal actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 typical calling patterns (e.g., before taking an action), prerequisites, or exclusions. The only clue is the tool's name and the phrase 'in a game', which implies usage context but is not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that taking an action likely mutates game state, what happens on invalid actions, or any side effects. It also fails to clarify whether it requires certain conditions (e.g., priority, phase). This is a significant gap for a game action tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to stating the basic purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb 'Take' and the resource 'game action', followed by examples. This is a model of efficiency, though it sacrifices detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, varied action types), the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain how to construct a valid request, which parameters are needed for each action type, or any behavioral nuances. The output schema exists but the description alone leaves the agent with many open questions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does 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 lists some valid values for the 'action' parameter, but provides no explanation of the other 8 parameters (card_name, destination, source_zone, target_name, etc.) or how they relate to specific actions. The 'action' parameter itself is not formally documented in the schema beyond a default empty string.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Take a game action' and lists specific action types like resource, play, and attack. This is a specific verb+resource pairing. However, it does not distinguish this generic action tool from dedicated sibling tools like swu_play_card or swu_resource_phase, which cover some of the same actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that handle specific actions (e.g., swu_play_card, swu_resource_phase). There is no mention of when not to use it or any 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at mutating state ('stateful session') without explaining whether it overwrites an existing deck, creates a session if missing, or applies the shuffle/draw defaults. These side effects are critical for a stateful tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wordiness, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It needs additional sentences to cover essential behavioral context for a five-parameter tool, so it is not appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the description is too thin for a stateful mutation tool among many related session tools. It does not explain how the upload integrates with the session lifecycle or what the default behaviors mean for subsequent game actions. Given the tool's complexity, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all five parameters. It only mentions 'decklist' generically and does not explain the format of the decklist string, the meaning of session_id, format_name, shuffle, or draw_opening_hand. The agent gains no additional meaning beyond type/default info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('upload') and clearly identifies the resource (Star Wars Unlimited decklist) and destination (named stateful session). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate, generate, or export by focusing on the upload-into-session action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 swu_validate_deck or swu_export_deck. There is no 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, the description carries full burden, but it only states the action without disclosing side effects like deck count reduction or hand addition. It also doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., empty deck) or authorization requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant information, earning top marks for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a state-changing game action with an output schema, but the description omits critical context such as effect on game state, required session setup, and relationship to other actions. With no annotations, this minimal coverage leaves the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only loosely hints at 'count' via 'one or more cards' but never explains session_id or that count is an integer with a default. Neither parameter gets meaningful semantic enrichment beyond the schema's basic types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Draw') and identifies the resource ('an uploaded deck session'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like view_hand or play_card. The 'one or more cards' quantifier adds specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mulligan or view_hand. There are no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., must have an active game session) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It reveals the core movement of cards but omits critical game-state implications: whether it mutates state, consumes resources, triggers effects, requires legal play, or is reversible. For a game action tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the essential action and zones. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the tool performs a complex, mutating game action with 8 parameters and no annotations. The one-sentence description does not cover parameter usage, legality, side effects, or how the modifiers apply. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional clues.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only partially compensates by enumerating source_zone and destination values. It does not explain the meaning of ready, damage, shield, card_name, experience, or session_id. An agent cannot infer how these parameters affect play action.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Play or deploy'), the resource ('a card'), and the source/destination zones ('hand, discard, or leader zone' into 'ground, space, or resources'). This level of specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like swu_move_card or swu_defeat_card.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as swu_move_card, swu_resource_phase, or swu_set_card_state. There is no mention of prerequisites, legality checks, or scenarios where this tool should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the core purpose and provides no details on randomness semantics, behavior on empty result sets, whether the operation has side effects, or how query+filters together form the search universe. This surpasses a tautology but fails to inform agents about important edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence without any redundant wording. Every word contributes to the purpose, and the concise structure allows rapid comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal but not wholly inadequate. It clarifies the 'search result set' concept enough to suggest the query/filters relationship, and the detailed schema plus output schema cover return values. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details that would make it fully complete for a tool with this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the query and filter parameters, including nested field meanings and examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: returning a random Star Wars Unlimited card from a search result set. The verb 'return', resource 'random card', and scope 'from a search result set' are specific, distinguishing it from siblings like swu_draw_card. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when this tool is preferred over a standard search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as swu_search_cards or swu_draw_card. The description implies usage for drawing a random card from a filtered set, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or recommend alternatives for other scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'reset playtest zones' as a side effect, but it does not reveal whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, how it affects game state, or whether swaps are reversible. This is a mutation tool, and the lack of detail about consequences is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the main action and a secondary effect. It contains no filler, and every word contributes to understanding. The structure is front-loaded with the primary action ('Swap cards') and follows with the consequence, making it easy to grasp quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity—'swaps' is a loosely defined array of objects, and there are no annotations—the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to specify swaps, what exactly 'reset playtest zones' entails, or any constraints on session_id. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of behavioral and parameter context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'swaps' or 'session_id' parameters. The 'swaps' parameter is an array of objects with additional properties, making its structure ambiguous, yet the description offers no guidance on how to format swaps. The description entirely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Swap cards between the main deck and sideboard, then reset playtest zones.' It uses a specific verb ('swap') and identifies the resources (main deck, sideboard) and an additional side effect (reset playtest zones). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like swu_upload_deck or swu_move_card, which handle different deck operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used for sideboard adjustments during playtesting ('then reset playtest zones'), but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites or situations where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving usage context largely implied.
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Validate a deck' but does not explain whether this is a read-only operation, what inputs are consumed, or what the result means. No side effects, requirements, or limitations are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide essential context for a tool with 3 optional parameters. It does not explain how the deck is passed, what formats are accepted beyond the two names, or what 'validating' entails. This is inadequate for proper tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the parameters. It only alludes to the format_name parameter ('Premier or Twin Suns') but completely omits decklist and session_id. Users are left without understanding how to supply the deck or what session_id means.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Validate' with a clear resource ('a Star Wars Unlimited deck') and specifies the supported formats ('Premier or Twin Suns'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like swu_analyze_deck or swu_suggest_cards, which serve 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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, exclusions, or comparison to sibling deck-related tools. The description simply states what it does without context.
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 what is analyzed but does not disclose side effects, input requirements, or return format. 'Analyze' implies a read-only operation, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb 'Analyze'. It is appropriately concise for a tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 optional parameters and no annotations, yet the description leaves major gaps: how to specify the deck (decklist vs session_id), what format_name influences, and what the output contains. The description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no guidance on any of the 5 parameters (decklist, session_id, format_name, meta_context, target_matchups). It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Analyze' with the resource 'Star Wars Unlimited deck' and enumerates the exact analysis dimensions (curve, aspects, roles, synergy). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate or generate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for deck analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as swu_validate_deck or swu_suggest_cards. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has side effects, or what happens with conflicting inputs (e.g., both decklist and session_id provided). This is a significant gap for a tool that might have hidden constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It conveys the core purpose and output formats efficiently, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema, the description lacks critical context about parameter dependencies and combination rules. With four optional parameters and no guidance on how they interact, the tool is under-specified for correct invocation. The description does not cover prerequisites, fallback behavior, or precedence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only maps 'deck session' and 'decklist' to session_id and decklist. It does not explain format_name (e.g., 'premier') or export_format values beyond the generic 'plain text or JSON', leaving the agent guessing about parameter defaults and allowed values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'export' with a clear resource ('deck session or decklist') and format ('plain text or JSON'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like swu_upload_deck, swu_validate_deck, and swu_analyze_deck, 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a deck export is needed but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., swu_upload_deck for importing). No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name.
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 must convey behavioral traits. 'View' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, whether it requires an active game session, or what happens if the session does not exist. It provides some transparency but falls short of fully disclosing behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and object. It wastes no words and front-loads the key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema that presumably documents the return structure, so that aspect is covered. However, the description lacks usage context—when to call this vs. swu_get_game_state, and it doesn't explain the session_id linkage. Given the low complexity, it's adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention the session_id parameter at all. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining how to target a specific game session, especially since the parameter is optional and defaults to 'default'. The omission leaves the agent guessing about the parameter's role.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose as viewing the current board state and enumerates the specific components included (ground, space, leaders, bases, resources), distinguishing it from sibling tools like swu_view_hand which focuses on the hand.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 vs alternatives like swu_get_game_state or swu_view_hand. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an active game) 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 of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the card is defeated and moved to discard, which is the key side effect. It does not mention error conditions or phase restrictions, but the core mutation is clearly described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning about the tool's action and destination.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the context is incomplete: the description omits parameter guidance, prerequisites, and any mention of when this action is legal. An agent would not know how to correctly populate zone/card_name or whether this is a game-state-mutating action requiring a valid session.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does 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 hints at 'zone' via 'board or another in-play zone', but does not explain the default 'ground' value, how card_name identifies the target, or the role of session_id. Most parameter semantics are left unspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'defeat' and clearly identifies the resource (a card from board/in-play zone) and the outcome (move to discard). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like swu_move_card or swu_play_card by naming the game-specific defeat mechanic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as swu_move_card or swu_set_card_state. The usage is only implicitly inferable from the name and description; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations are present.
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 basic operation of moving a card, but fails to explain critical side effects such as whether the card's ready state changes, if legal move validation occurs, or any permissions required. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse for a 5-parameter game-state mutation tool. It does not explain the 'ready' parameter, which is crucial for understanding how the card arrives in the destination zone, nor does it address session handling. The tool's complexity is not matched by the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the meaning of source_zone and destination by enumerating example zones, and card_name via 'existing in-play card'. However, it completely ignores the 'ready' and 'session_id' parameters, leaving their purpose unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action (Move) and the resource (existing in-play card or leader/resource), along with the zones (ground, space, resource, discard). This differentiates it from sibling tools like play_card or defeat_card, which handle different gameplay actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: when an existing in-play entity needs to be relocated between zones. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the top score.
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 present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It honestly describes the recommendation behavior and notes that only_owned=True restricts to the loaded collection, but it does not disclose prerequisites like whether a loaded collection is required or how it handles a missing decklist. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two terse sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and the key only_owned flag in a second clause. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It gives the core purpose and one flag, but fails to explain several meaningful inputs; the presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing parameter context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and only two of eight parameters (goal and only_owned) are mentioned in the description. Parameters like decklist, format_name, meta_context, and target_matchups are left to bare names and defaults, forcing the agent to guess their exact meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states a specific verb+resource+outcome: 'Suggest cards to improve a Star Wars Unlimited deck toward a stated goal.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_cards (lookup) and generate_deck (full deck creation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a clear use context (deck improvement) and explains the only_owned filter, but never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as swu_search_cards or swu_generate_deck. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'View' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of a 'deck session' provides some context, but it does not explicitly state side effects, prerequisites, or failure modes. This is a basic level of transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb 'View' and immediately specifies the objects and scope. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. The description covers the core function and context, and the single parameter is optional with a default. It is sufficiently complete for a simple view tool, though it could add a note about when to use it during play.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the 'session_id' parameter or its role. The only hint is 'for a deck session,' which vaguely connects the parameter to a session, but the description does not clarify the default behavior or how the parameter is used.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool views the current hand, resources, and core counters for a deck session, specifying both the action and the precise resources involved. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like swu_view_board by enumerating the specific content being viewed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when it should be invoked or what scenarios it is best suited for, such as during an active game session or when inspecting hand state.
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 behavioral disclosure burden. 'Full-hand mulligan' implies resetting the hand, but it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., discarding current hand, drawing new hand) or any game-state requirements. The term is well-known in card games, but the description does not add detail beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the primary action and is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks contextual details such as when a mulligan is allowed (e.g., only at game start) or what constitutes a 'full-hand' mulligan. The description is minimal but not inadequate for a straightforward action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'session_id' parameter. Although the parameter has a default and is likely self-explanatory, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema itself, leaving the agent to guess the parameter's role.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Take a full-hand mulligan') and the resource ('current deck session'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like swu_draw_card or swu_sideboard, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('current deck session') but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It is not misleading, but lacks depth.
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 must disclose behavioral traits, and it does convey a read-only query behavior via 'Return how many copies.' However, it does not mention edge cases such as how unowned cards are handled or whether invalid inputs produce errors, leaving some uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: two short sentences with no filler. The first clearly states the purpose, and the second provides a useful usage example, making every word valuable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
As a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic usage but omits important context like error behavior and zero-count results. It is adequate for straightforward use but not fully comprehensive for all scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 provides a concrete example ('LOF 47') for set_code and card_number, adding format guidance. Yet it does not explain the meaning of each parameter or how they combine beyond the example, which is somewhat limited.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: returning the count of owned copies for a specific Star Wars Unlimited printing. The phrase 'Return how many copies... the user owns' is a specific verb+resource, and the example 'LOF 47' clarifies the intended input format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like swu_list_collection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a user needs to know ownership counts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or references to other tools are given, so guidance is minimal.
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 must disclose side effects. It lists three concrete mutations: readying resources, potentially moving a card from hand to resource zone, and drawing a card. However, it omits details like session state requirements, whether the resourced card is exhausted, or failure conditions, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, uses a clear sequential structure. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a simple 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., game must be in progress) and does not map parameters to names explicitly, making it less complete than ideal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 references resource_card ('optionally resourcing a hand card') and draw_for_turn ('drawing for turn'), but does not explain session_id or clarify that draw_for_turn can be set to false to skip drawing. Param semantics are only partially conveyed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: to advance the resource phase in a game, listing the specific actions (readying resources, optionally resourcing a hand card, drawing). It distinguishes this from sibling tools that handle other phases or actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates this is used during the resource phase of a turn, but provides no explicit guidance about when to use it over alternative actions like swu_take_game_action or swu_play_card. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
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 discloses that the tool returns a URL and can select between front and back faces, which is useful. But with no annotations, it omits behaviors such as error handling when card identifiers are invalid, or whether it performs a network request. It also doesn't specify if it requires network access or authentication.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no filler. Efficiently conveys the core purpose and the front/back option.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema covers return values, but the description does not sufficiently explain how to specify the card (name vs set_code vs card_number) or what happens when queries are ambiguous. Given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally functional but lacks important usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only explains the 'back_face' parameter via the 'front or back' phrase. The roles of 'name', 'set_code', and 'card_number' are not clarified, and no precedence or required identifier is specified, leaving the agent without enough guidance to construct a valid request.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'front or back image URL for a Star Wars Unlimited card.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like swu_lookup_card or swu_search_cards, which focus on card data rather than image URLs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies it is used when an image URL is needed, and the front/back distinction provides context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as using swu_lookup_card if full card details are required.
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it is a read operation and returns a CardDetail record, but does not disclose error/not-found behavior or the fact that prefix matching is allowed (schema provides that). Adequate 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and key criteria. No redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential purpose and return type. It lacks only error/not-found behavior and explicit alternative tool guidance, which are minor for this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes all three parameters at 100% coverage, including the OR constraint. The tool description restates this constraint without adding additional meaning or format details, so it does not exceed the schema's contribution.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Look up' and identifies the resource as a specific Star Wars Unlimited card, distinguished by query criteria (name or set_code+card_number). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like swu_search_cards or swu_random_card.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have an exact or prefix card name or a set+number combination, but it does not explicitly contrast with swu_search_cards for broad searches or mention when not to use it. Sibling context exists, but the description itself offers no exclusion or alternative 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context by specifying the summary scope and indicates a prerequisite (the collection must be loaded), but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. For a summarization tool, this is partially adequate but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the key output components. Every phrase adds value, with no wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema present. The description covers the main output categories and the 'loaded' prerequisite. It could be more explicit about behavioral implications, but given the simplicity and existing output schema, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation needed. The description appropriately focuses on output scope rather than parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Summarize' and identifies the resource as 'the loaded Star Wars Unlimited collection', listing concrete output elements (total cards, unique printings, per-set breakdown, storage path). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like swu_list_collection and swu_owned_count, which serve 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by describing a summary of the collection, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond 'loaded'. No comparative guidance is provided, so it earns a 3.
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 exhaustive brewing over all legal pairings, the ranking formula (synergy + interaction density - off-aspect burden), and the effect of include_decks. It does not mention side effects or performance, but the tool appears read-only. The disclosure is substantial and goes beyond simple action naming.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then parameter guidance, then a use case. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 8 optional parameters and a provided output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the main workflow and scoring, but it lacks explanations for half the parameters. Given the tool's complexity, this leaves notable gaps for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for all 8 parameters. It explains moral, primary_aspects, and include_decks, and indirectly references top_k. However, theme, base_name, only_owned, and format_name are left unexplained. This is insufficient for the agent to correctly use all parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'brew a deck for every legal leader pairing in your owned pool and rank them by composite score.' It names the specific verb (rank/brew), the resource (leader pairs), and the scope (Twin Suns, owned pool). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on card lookup, deck validation, or game actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear context: 'Twin Suns only' sets the format restriction, and it describes how to narrow results with 'moral' and 'primary_aspects'. The use case 'surfacing leader pairs you wouldn't have considered manually' explains when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations to avoid, so it falls short of a 5.
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 transparency. It discloses the prerequisite (both AI), the simulation nature, and the return contents (winner, damage breakdown, MVP cards, log). It does not mention any side effects or rate limits, but the simulation context implies a read-like execution.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two well-structured sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide essential details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is moderately complex, and an output schema exists to explain return values, which the description also summarizes. However, the description omits the max_turns parameter's behavior and does not clarify whether the game_id must be an already-started game, leaving minor gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It mentions game_id implicitly through 'set player_is_ai=true in start_game' but does not explain the max_turns parameter at all, leaving its meaning and impact unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs a full AI-vs-AI game simulation to completion, using a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('game simulation'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like swu_take_ai_turn by emphasizing full completion rather than a single turn.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does 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: both players must be AI, and it requires prior setup in start_game. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, so it falls short of fully explicit guidance.
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 burden and discloses several key behaviors: default on-aspect restriction, off-aspect cost implications, ownership quantity capping, and curve steering via target_avg_cost. It stops short of stating that the result is not guaranteed legal or final, but 'first-pass' implies this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at four sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and then provides targeted parameter guidance without wasted words or repetition of schema details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 11 params and an output schema, it covers the most impactful behaviors and defaults, making it usable for its primary purpose. It does not explain every parameter or explicitly link to the output schema, but it is sufficiently complete given the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for only_owned, allow_off_aspect, and target_avg_cost with concrete examples, but it leaves several parameters (budget, base_name, leader_names, primary_aspects, target_matchups, meta_context) unaddressed, leaving clear gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'generate' with a clear resource 'deck' and a defined scope 'around a theme', immediately distinguishing it from siblings like validate, analyze, or suggest deck tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It establishes a clear use case ('first-pass brew') and gives actionable guidance on when to set only_owned, allow_off_aspect, and target_avg_cost. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions when compared to other deck tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that hidden information is filtered by viewer unless reveal_all is true, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. It does not mention authentication or permissions, but for a simple state getter this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys both the primary function and the key behavioral nuance. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return values do not need explanation. The description covers the core filtering behavior and the existence of a viewer concept. It does not provide usage guidelines or exclusions, but the scope is narrow enough that this is not a critical gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does 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 explains the effect of viewer and reveal_all ('filtered by viewer unless reveal_all is true'), but game_id is left to the schema. Since game_id is self-explanatory from the name, the description adds meaning for two of three parameters, which is good compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'current two-player game state', while also noting the hidden-information filtering behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like swu_view_hand or swu_view_board that focus on specific subsets of the game state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use when the full game state is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as swu_view_hand or swu_get_legal_actions. There is no direct when-to-use guidance, only an implied context via the phrase 'current two-player game state'.
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 full burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns a typed SearchResult') and implies a read-only search operation, but does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, whether it queries an external API, or how errors are handled. For a search tool, it is adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and usage. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy, 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.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with moderate complexity, the description covers purpose and usage, and the output schema exists to document return values. It omits mention of limit/order/direction, but these are self-explanatory and fully described in the schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing the filter dimensions (aspect, type, arena, rarity, set, trait, numeric stats) and clarifying that free-text matching belongs to query, not filters. This helps the agent correctly choose between query and filter parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search Star Wars Unlimited cards' with specific verbs and a clear resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like swu_lookup_card (exact lookup) by emphasizing natural text and structured filters, and explicitly mentions the return type, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on how to use the tool: 'Pass query for free-text matching; use filters to constrain...' This is clear, actionable context. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the context strongly implies it is for broad searches rather than exact lookups.
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. The verb 'List' signals a read-only operation, 'from the loaded collection' implies a prerequisite, and 'Pass limit=0 for no limit' discloses non-obvious behavior beyond the schema default. However, it doesn't specify error behavior if no collection is loaded or how results are ordered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with the main purpose up front and a concise parameter tip. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return format is already covered. The description addresses the core listing purpose, the optional filter, and the limit edge case. It lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or edge-case error handling, but for a simple list tool with a loaded-collection precondition, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does 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 to both parameters: set_code is described as an optional filter, and limit is given a special value '0' meaning no limit. This is valuable beyond the bare type/default info in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'owned printings from the loaded collection', with an optional filter by set_code. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like swu_owned_count (which likely counts) and swu_search_cards (which searches broadly).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by stating 'from the loaded collection', indicating this tool operates on an already-loaded collection. It also provides parameter guidance with 'Pass limit=0 for no limit'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or explain when not to use this tool, such as when a count or summary would be more appropriate.
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 explicitly discloses that the tool 'persists to disk' and that merge=False (default) implies replacing the existing collection, which is a destructive behavior. This is important behavioral context, though it doesn't mention validation or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and includes the essential file format and merge behavior. Perfectly concise for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists) and the presence of sibling tools, the description covers the core functionality well. It doesn't elaborate on return values (handled by output schema) or edge cases, but these are not critical for a straightforward import tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does 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 explains csv_path as the CSV export with specified columns, and merge=False default behavior via 'set merge=True to add to existing collection instead of replacing it.' Both parameters are addressed, though the exact path format and CSV encoding are not detailed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool imports a Star Wars Unlimited collection from a SWUDB CSV export, specifying the exact columns (Set, CardNumber, Count, IsFoil) and that it persists to disk. This distinguishes it from siblings like swu_list_collection (listing) and swu_upload_deck (deck-specific upload).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does 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 (importing from CSV) and gives a specific usage instruction: set merge=True to add to an existing collection instead of replacing it. It doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, but the merge guidance helps decide between add and replace modes.
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 present, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects and output behavior. It transparently explains that refresh=true recomputes from scratch, lists the enumerated package types, and specifies the 'live' threshold (≥4 enablers + ≥2 payoffs), which exceeds typical tool descriptions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then enumerating output details and a single parameter. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists and the description already covers the main purpose, output categories, live thresholds, and parameter behavior, the description fully equips an agent. It also aligns with the sibling tools by referencing the 'loaded collection' concept.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter (refresh) has 0% schema coverage, but the description gives it explicit meaning: 'Pass refresh=true to recompute from scratch.' This fully explains the parameter's effect and implies the default is a cached/non-recomputed result.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Profile') and identifies the resource ('loaded collection') with a distinct analytical focus ('combo-package density'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like swu_collection_summary by the specialized combo enabler/payoff counting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the tool is for analyzing combo potential within an already-loaded collection. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specific use case ('combo-package density') and the refresh parameter provide enough contextual guidance.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/dreliq9/r2-d2'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server