windows-debug-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a specific diagnostic area with minimal overlap. For example, get_crash_history, get_reliability_history, and list_crash_dumps serve different purposes (event analysis, reliability timeline, dump file listing). Tools like read_registry_key and read_registry_value are clearly distinct by scope. The descriptions further clarify boundaries.
Naming Consistency5/5Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using prefixes like get_, list_, read_, inspect_, query_, verify_, and collect_. No mixing of camelCase or inconsistent verb styles, making the set predictable for an agent.
Tool Count4/535 tools is on the higher side, but the domain of Windows debugging is broad, covering hardware, software, events, performance, and settings. The count is justified given the need for specialized tools, though some agents might find it slightly heavy. It remains within a reasonable scope without being overwhelming.
Completeness5/5The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of diagnostic tasks: system overview, hardware status, software inventory, event logs, crash analysis, performance monitoring, and configuration inspection. It includes both high-level summaries and detailed queries, with no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of diagnosing crashes, stutter, and performance issues.
Average 4.1/5 across 35 of 35 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.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
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions specific config categories (interrupt moderation, etc.), suggesting read-only intent. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or list any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is brief (two sentences) but front-loads key information. The first sentence lists main items, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet list). Minimal waste, though slightly informal.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description omits when to set include_advanced to false or any prerequisites. For a simple tool with one optional parameter, it is adequate but not comprehensive.
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%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'include_advanced' parameter. With only one parameter, the description should clarify its effect, but it does not, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema.
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?
Description clearly states what tool retrieves (network adapters, drivers, IP configuration, latency-relevant settings) and provides specific examples. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings and the informal tone slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool or when not to. The description implies relevance for gaming/performance but does not state alternatives or exclusion criteria. Sibling tools are listed but not compared.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, performance implications, or required permissions. While the tool name suggests read-only access, this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loads the key purpose, and uses plain language. Every sentence contributes useful context without 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?
Given the tool has only one optional parameter and an output schema exists (not shown), the description provides enough context for an agent to understand when to use it. However, it could briefly mention the return format or typical usage patterns.
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 input schema has one parameter 'days' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain its meaning or effect. Although 'days' is somewhat self-explanatory (number of days of history), the description adds no value beyond the schema.
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 retrieves data from Reliability Monitor including crashes, hangs, failed updates, and driver problems. It distinguishes itself by focusing on reliability history, which is unique among siblings. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from related tools like get_crash_history.
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 'spotting when trouble started' due to timeline alignment of installs/updates and failures, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like get_crash_history. No exclusions or when-not-to-use 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 provided, so description must disclose behavior. It does not mention what happens if the server cannot reach data sources (e.g., error, timeout), nor any other behavioral traits like latency or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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?
For a simple tool with no parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description is adequate but lacks details about what 'Windows data sources' entails or expected return format. It covers basic purpose but leaves some gaps.
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?
With zero parameters, the description adds meaning by clarifying the tool's purpose beyond the empty schema. It explains that the tool evaluates connectivity, which the name alone might not fully convey.
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 checks connectivity to Windows data sources. It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools that focus on system hardware or performance.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_network_configuration' or when not to use it. The description implies a simple connectivity check but lacks usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose whether the tool requires administrative privileges, what scope of devices is covered (e.g., all devices or only currently problematic ones), or any performance or side effects. The examples of error codes offer some insight into output, but overall behavioral information is lacking.
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 highly concise with exactly two sentences. The first states the core function, and the second provides illustrative examples. No extraneous information is present, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally acceptable. However, it lacks information on the scope of devices, when to use the tool, and any constraints or prerequisites. It is functional but not fully complete for a complex 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?
The tool has no parameters, and the input schema is empty. With schema description coverage at 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no additional parameter semantics are required.
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 indicates the tool deals with devices that Windows reports as problematic and decodes Device Manager error codes, which matches the tool name. However, it does not explicitly state that it 'lists' such devices, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools, though none are directly comparable.
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 gives examples of common error codes but does not explain the context or prerequisites for using the tool.
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 notes that sections are independent so one unavailable data source does not lose the rest. With no annotations, this adds some behavioral insight, but it does not disclose read-only nature or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with four sentences: purpose, list of contents, behavioral trait, and follow-up guidance. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main idea.
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 covers purpose, contents, and behavior, but lacks parameter details. The output schema exists, so return values are handled, but the missing parameter semantics reduces completeness.
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 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'days'. The description does not explain this parameter at all, leaving the agent without guidance on how the argument affects the snapshot.
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 it is a single call that gathers the usual starting point for diagnosis, listing specific components. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by suggesting follow-up with specific tools for issues.
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 indicates use as a starting point and to follow up with specific tools, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic read operation. It does not mention whether the tool requires administrative privileges, has side effects, or is read-only. The implicit 'get' nature suggests read-only, but explicit confirmation is missing.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but includes an additional sentence about common settings that, while informative, could be seen as tangential. It is reasonably concise but could be tighter by moving non-essential context to a note.
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 existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameter. It mentions 'long output' for the 'all' option, preparing the user. No further details about return values are needed. For a simple read-only tool, this is sufficiently 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 0% coverage with no parameter descriptions, but the tool description fully compensates by listing valid values for the 'section' parameter ('processor, pcie, disk, display, sleep, usb, graphics') and explaining the 'all' option. This provides clear guidance beyond the default and 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the active power plan and details of one of its subgroups. It lists specific subgroups and common problematic settings, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_system_overview or get_gpu_info by focusing on power configuration.
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 diagnosing performance issues related to power settings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. There is no comparison to sibling tools like get_performance_snapshot or get_system_overview.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes output data but does not state that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, or any authentication/rate limits. Important traits like safety are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states purpose and ordering, the second provides actionable guidance. Information is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete regarding purpose and usage context. However, it omits parameter explanation and behavioral traits, leaving gaps despite the presence of an output schema.
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 has 0% coverage of the only parameter 'max_items' in its schema. It does not explain how to use it or its effect (limits results). As the sole parameter, its meaning should be clarified to add value beyond 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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'installed updates and recent Windows Update activity' ordered newest first, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_installed_software' that cover general software. The verb 'get' and resource 'Windows updates' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implicit guidance by suggesting to line up install dates with problem dates, indicating use for troubleshooting update-triggered issues. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear.
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 full burden. It discloses ordering (newest first) and the nature of reports (only remaining record sometimes). However, it does not mention that limit parameter controls count, or if pagination exists. 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 sentences; first states purpose and ordering, second adds valuable context. No fluff, every sentence earns its place.
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 the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description covers the core purpose but omits the limit parameter. It is adequate for basic use but could be more complete by mentioning the parameter.
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 mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to add context like 'Specify the maximum number of reports to return', which would help the agent.
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 'List Windows Error Reporting reports, newest first.' This is a specific verb (List) and resource (Windows Error Reporting reports), and it distinguishes from siblings like list_crash_dumps which deal with dump files.
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 needing to see crash/hang records, especially when no dump files exist, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_crash_dumps or get_crash_history. No exclusions or when-not guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Read,' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any permissions needed, side effects, or constraints. For a registry read, this is minimal.
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 very concise, using a clear header and a brief list of arguments. Every sentence adds value and there is no wasted text.
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 simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It adequately covers the parameters and the core action, though a note about registry context might be helpful.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'path' as 'Full key path,' 'name' as 'Value name' with special case of empty string for default, and 'view' options. This adds useful meaning beyond the schema, though it does not elaborate on the effect of view.
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 'Read a single registry value,' specifying the action (read) and the resource (registry value). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'read_registry_key' which would read a key, not a value.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_registry_key' or other registry tools. The description lacks explicit context for its appropriate use cases.
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 that the tool retrieves historical boot timing data and points to specific culprits, which is transparent for a read-only diagnostic tool. However, it could mention system load or permission 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 three sentences with clear front-loading: the first sentence states the main output, the second provides context, and the third gives practical insight. 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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality but lacks guidance on the parameter. It is adequate but not fully complete; the parameter should be explained.
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%, meaning the parameter 'max_events' lacks a schema description. The tool description does not mention the parameter or its effect (limiting results), failing to compensate for the missing schema 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 it provides boot and shutdown timings and identifies what slowed them down. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings, none of which cover boot performance.
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 diagnosing slow boots ('Slow boots almost always have a named culprit here') but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage is implied, not explicit.
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 description carries full burden. It details the types of dumps included (kernel minidumps, full dump, live kernel reports, application dumps, Windows Error Reporting), adding behavioral depth. However, it does not mention whether administrative privileges are needed or performance impact.
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?
Description is front-loaded with primary purpose and well-structured across two paragraphs. Each sentence adds value, though the second paragraph could be slightly tighter.
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?
Description covers multiple dump locations and links to inspect_crash_dump. Missing parameter documentation is the main gap; but given output schema existence and simple parameter, it is largely adequate for selecting the tool.
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?
There is one parameter (limit) with schema documentation 0%. The description does not mention the limit parameter or its meaning, failing to add value beyond the bare 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?
Description clearly states 'List crash dumps on this machine, newest first' with specific verb and resource. It enumerates coverage across multiple dump locations and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool inspect_crash_dump.
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?
Description advises to pass a path from the list to inspect_crash_dump, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternatives beyond the sibling mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It names the output fields (CPU, memory, I/O, paths) but lacks details on data freshness, permission requirements, or potential side effects. For a read-only tool, this is acceptable 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 concise sentences plus a clear bullet list. Every sentence adds meaningful information without repetition. Efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and arguments.
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 that an output schema exists (not shown, but indicated), the description covers inputs and output fields adequately. It lacks mention of default sort order or maximum top value, but these are minor gaps for a list 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 coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by explaining each parameter: sort_by with examples ('cpu', 'memory', 'handles'), top as row count, name_filter as substring match. This goes beyond the schema's type-only definitions.
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 lists running processes with specific details (CPU, memory, I/O, executable paths). The verb 'list' and resource 'processes' are explicit, and the tool is well-differentiated from siblings like list_services.
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 process information is needed but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., get_system_overview for less detail). No when-not-to-use instructions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states it returns drivers sorted newest first and lists filter effects, but does not mention permissions, read-only nature, or behavior when no results. Adequate but lacking detail.
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: a header sentence, a bullet-style parameter list, and a brief usage tip. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value with no waste.
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?
With an output schema present (not shown), return values are covered. The description covers all 5 parameters and their defaults. Could add a note about typical use cases, but overall complete for a list tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: name_filter (substring match on name/provider), device_class (substring on class), third_party_only (exclude Microsoft), unsigned_only (only unsigned), max_items (max rows). This adds substantial 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?
The description clearly states 'Installed drivers with versions and dates, newest first,' specifying the resource (drivers), properties (versions, dates), and ordering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_processes or get_system_overview.
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 provides filter options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The tip about investigating old or unsigned drivers near bug checks is helpful but not a clear usage guideline.
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?
Without annotations, the description implicitly indicates a read-only operation by listing returned fields (state, start mode, account) and parameter effects. It does not explicitly state side-effect safety but the read-only nature is clear from context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. No redundant sentences, and information is front-loaded.
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?
Covers all parameters and the return information (state, start mode, account). With an output schema present, the lack of detailed return structure is acceptable. Minor omission: no mention of potential limits or ordering.
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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining each parameter's values and behavior, e.g., state options 'Running', 'Stopped', and name_filter described as substring match. With 0% schema coverage, this is essential and well done.
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 it lists Windows services with state, start mode, and account, which is specific and distinct from siblings like list_drivers or list_processes. The purpose is immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_drivers or list_processes. The description is purely functional, lacking context about preferred use cases 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 burden for behavioral transparency. It clarifies that the tool retrieves monitor-specific data (resolution, refresh rate) and provides a practical insight about stutter causes. It does not contradict any annotations, and the read-only nature is implied.
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 short sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core function and adds a relevant practical note about stutter. Each sentence serves a clear purpose.
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 has no parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the return content (monitors, resolution, refresh rate). It does not detail the output format, but the presence of an output schema likely compensates. For a simple read tool, this is sufficient.
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 baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying what information is returned (monitors, resolution, refresh rate), going beyond the schema which only defines an empty object.
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 tool name 'get_display_info' is vague, but the description clearly states it retrieves connected monitors, resolution, and refresh rate. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_gpu_info' or 'get_system_overview'. It specifically calls out the 'stutter' use case, making the purpose explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for diagnosing stutter due to refresh rate mismatches, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_gpu_info' for GPU-specific details). No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states the tool reads from the registry, making its read-only nature clear. It also explains that values are explained and distinguishes 'not set' from 'set to zero', providing good behavioral context. Without annotations, this is adequate.
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 concise but informative, listing key settings and their distinctions. It is front-loaded with the purpose. One or two sentences could be trimmed, but overall it earns its length.
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 no parameters and an output schema, the description is highly complete. It lists the specific settings covered and notes the distinction between 'not set' and 'set to zero'. This sufficiently covers the tool's functionality for an AI agent.
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?
There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. With 0 parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as no clarification is required.
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 it retrieves Windows gaming settings from the registry, listing specific settings like Game Mode, Game Bar, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_gpu_info or get_per_application_graphics_settings by focusing on global gaming-related registry values.
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 checking overall gaming settings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_per_application_graphics_settings or when not to use it. No exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only snapshot of GPU info but doesn't explicitly state non-destructiveness or potential performance impact. Still, the behavior is straightforward for a getter.
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 concise sentences: the first specifies what is returned, the second adds a practical usage hint. No wasted words, information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and a key use case. Could mention it's a snapshot, but overall complete for a simple data retrieval 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?
No parameters exist, so per rules the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% (trivially), and the description adds no extra parameter meaning but is not required.
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 retrieves graphics adapter details, driver versions/dates, VRAM, and display mode. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_display_info or get_system_overview, which cover different hardware aspects.
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?
Provides a specific use case: checking driver version for VIDEO_TDR_FAILURE or game crashes. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other contexts or mention alternatives, the hint is actionable and relevant.
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 adequately discloses behavioral traits: notes performance impact of settings ('my whole machine got slower') and covers key aspects. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then added context. No wasted words. Efficient.
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 zero parameters and existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's output. It names the main categories and provides helpful context about performance impact.
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?
No parameters exist; baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the output represents (VBS, memory integrity, CPU mitigations, antivirus), which is more than the schema provides.
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 retrieves virtualization-based security, memory integrity, CPU mitigations, and antivirus state. It uses specific nouns and is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_system_overview or get_gpu_info.
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 checking security mitigation settings but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists the types of items included (Run keys, Startup folder, logon tasks) which implies a read-only enumeration. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is destructive or requires permissions, though the read-only nature is inferred from context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences and a clear bullet-like phrase. Front-loaded with the essential information: what the tool lists. Every sentence is information-dense and necessary. No wasted words.
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 no parameters and low complexity. The description covers typical use cases and content. An output schema exists (not shown) to document return values. Missing details like whether disabled items are included, but overall adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the content of the output (list of startup programs with categories), compensating for the lack of parameters with clarity on what the tool returns.
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 lists all startup items (Run keys, Startup folder, logon tasks). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying use cases like boot slowness and game interference, and the resource 'startup programs' is unique among sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly guides when to use the tool: 'when boot is slow or something is interfering with games in the background.' It implies usage for troubleshooting but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, which is acceptable given the narrow scope.
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 tool returns module attributes and provides diagnostic context (e.g., XMP/EXPO, WHEA errors), which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, though that is implied.
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 zero wasted words. Each sentence adds meaningful information: what is returned and how to interpret it.
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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description fully explains the return values (size, speeds, part numbers) and adds diagnostic interpretation, making it complete for a read-only hardware information 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?
There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information; it correctly focuses on results.
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 it retrieves installed RAM modules with specific attributes (size, rated speed, configured speed, part numbers). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_gpu_info or get_system_overview.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description implies it is for RAM-related diagnostics (e.g., checking speed mismatches), but does not say when not to use it or name alternative 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?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses the scope of returned data (per-application settings) and specific attributes, but does not mention any side effects or safety guarantees.
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 purpose, no wasteful words. Highly efficient.
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 no parameters and presence of output schema, description fully covers what the tool returns and its purpose. No missing context.
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?
No parameters exist, so description does not need to add meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, baseline for 0 parameters 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?
Description clearly states it shows per-application GPU preferences and compatibility shims, listing specific examples like GPU pinning, fullscreen optimizations, DPI overrides. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_gpu_info or get_gaming_settings.
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?
Description implies use when diagnosing why a game behaves differently, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not explicitly state behavioral traits such as read-only, auth requirements, or side effects. However, the tool name implies a read operation and there are no annotations to contradict. More explicit disclosure would improve 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 two sentences, front-loading purpose and then relevance. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and when it is relevant, meeting completeness requirements.
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 tool has no parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but given zero parameters, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 that the tool retrieves which sleep states the firmware supports and what is blocking others. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_power_configuration.
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 context by mentioning relevance to DRIVER_POWER_STATE_FAILURE and symptoms of waking on own or failing to resume, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that the tool returns health counters and free space, and adds valuable context about low free space blocking crash dumps. With no annotations, this provides good behavioral insight for a read-only 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?
Two sentences: first states what is returned, second explains diagnostic relevance. No unnecessary words, and information is front-loaded.
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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and provides enough context for interpretation. It mentions key diagnostic use cases and constraints.
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?
No parameters exist, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description effectively explains the tool's output without needing parameter details.
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 it retrieves disks, SMART health counters, and free space per volume. Provides specific examples of health counters and their relation to system issues, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_pagefile_and_dump_settings or get_system_overview.
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?
Description implies usage for diagnosing storage-related issues (e.g., KERNEL_DATA_INPAGE_ERROR, stutter, failed updates) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adequately indicates read-only nature (listing logs) and mentions what to expect (names). However, it does not discuss any potential side effects, permissions, or limitations beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: three sentences plus Args section. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage context, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no required inputs), the description is complete. It explains purpose, usage context, and parameter meaning. Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. No gaps remain.
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 description must compensate. It describes 'name_filter' as an optional wildcard with examples like '*Kernel*', adding meaning beyond the schema's empty description. This provides clear usage guidance for the single parameter.
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?
Description clearly states 'List the Windows event logs that contain records' with a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'query_event_log' by positioning this as a discovery tool, and provides concrete name examples.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this to discover which log to query', giving context for when to invoke. Mentions name_filter with wildcard usage and connects to query_event_log. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the guidance is sufficient for this simple discovery tool.
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 provided, so description bears full burden. It states it 'picks up' events and 'labels' them, implying read-only behavior but doesn't explicitly state it's non-destructive or discuss side effects, rate limits, or auth. Adequate but could be more 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?
Front-loaded with purpose, then detailed parameter descriptions. Every sentence is informative with no fluff. The docstring-style Args block is well-structured.
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 output schema exists, description needn't detail return values. It explains what events it covers (bug checks, restarts, WHEA errors, etc.) and mentions labeling. With 3 well-described parameters and clear usage context, it is complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing parameters in an Args block: days (how far back), max_events (max per log), include_noise (keep harmless entries). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, which only provides defaults.
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 it retrieves critical and error events from System and Application logs, specifically for diagnosing PC crashes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_event_logs, query_event_log, and inspect_crash_dump which are for more general or deeper analysis.
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?
Explicitly recommends it as the first call for 'why did my PC crash', providing clear context. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the recommendation implies usage context. Sibling tools like inspect_crash_dump are for post-crash deep dives.
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 details behavior: scans Python modules and PowerShell scripts for write APIs, mutating cmdlets, shell escapes, and dynamic code execution, reporting allowed operations. It does not mention performance impact or non-destructiveness, but the core behavior is clear.
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: two sentences in the first paragraph and one sentence in the second, front-loading the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers what the tool does and when to use it. It could be improved by stating the tool is safe/non-destructive, but overall it is complete enough for a simple verification 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?
There are no parameters (zero required). Baseline 4 applies as per guidelines, and the description adds no parameter information since none exist.
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 purpose: 'Prove that this server cannot modify the machine' by scanning source code for write APIs. It distinguishes from sibling tools (all read-only info tools) by focusing on verification rather than information retrieval.
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 explicitly says when to use ('Run this if you want to confirm the guarantee'), but does not mention when not to use or provide alternative tools. However, the unique purpose suffices for a no-parameter tool.
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 provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the source (uninstall registry keys) implying read-only behavior. Lacks details on performance or side effects but 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?
Three short sentences: first states purpose, second lists args, third gives usage context. No wasted words, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core action.
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 and read-only. The description covers purpose, usage, and parameters. There is an output schema (not shown) which can document return fields, so the description is complete enough. Could mention field format but not necessary.
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?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description clearly explains both parameters: name_filter as substring match against name and publisher, max_items as maximum rows. This fully compensates for the schema gap.
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 reads installed applications from uninstall registry keys. This verb+resource specification distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_drivers or get_startup_programs.
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?
Provides specific context: scanning this list is worth when a crash dump names an unfamiliar module. It gives clear when-to-use advice but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral implications: a disabled page file, page file on a different volume, or dump setting to 'none' prevent crash dump writing. This adds context beyond a simple read operation, though it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two concise sentences. The first defines the tool's focus, and the second provides a concrete usage scenario. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (reducing the need to detail return format), the description adequately explains what the tool retrieves and why it matters in a troubleshooting context. It is complete for a read-only diagnostic 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?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics as there are none.
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 explicitly states that the tool retrieves page file configuration and crash dump settings, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_crash_history or list_crash_dumps by focusing on configuration rather than history or file listing.
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 a clear use case: 'Worth checking whenever a blue screen was reported but no dump exists.' This gives specific context for when the tool is valuable. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, leaving room for improvement.
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 provided, so description carries the burden. It states the tool is a single, non-destructive sample and lists specific metrics. Could mention that it's safe and read-only, but the description sufficiently discloses 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?
Two short paragraphs with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: lists metrics, explains usage pattern. No redundancy or fluff.
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 zero parameters and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and usage hints. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?
No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so baseline is 4. The description adds value by enumerating the metrics returned (DPCs, interrupts, etc.), enhancing understanding beyond the empty 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 clearly identifies the tool as an instantaneous read of CPU, memory, disk, and GPU utilization, specifying it focuses on stutter-related metrics. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `get_system_overview` by emphasizing real-time performance snapshots.
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?
Provides clear usage context: call multiple times while reproducing a problem rather than single snapshot. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool suggestions, but the context effectively guides usage.
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 burden. It accurately describes the output without implying any side effects. The tool is read-only by nature, and the description 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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a brief list. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the purpose.
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 the output schema exists (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It provides the essential context of what the tool returns and why it should be used first.
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 tool has no parameters. According to the rubric, 0 parameters baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter 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 clearly states that the tool returns Windows edition, build, uptime, CPU, RAM, board, and firmware. It positions itself as the starting point for system diagnostics ('Start here.'), which indicates its specific role among siblings.
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 says 'Start here,' which provides a clear usage guideline to use this tool first. It also explains why build and uptime matter. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative 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?
No annotations provided; description discloses that coverage depends on firmware and empty results are not errors, which is adequate for a read-only info 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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words: first states purpose, second clarifies a critical caveat.
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?
With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool does and a key behavioral nuance.
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?
Zero parameters, baseline score 4; description adds value by clarifying what the output represents.
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 returns ACPI thermal zone temperatures, throttling state, and fan status, distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover other system aspects.
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 context on firmware dependency and empty result meaning, implying when to use (need thermal data) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the read operation and lists the returned fields (faulting application, module, offset, exception code). It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a read-only tool this is adequate 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 concise with two short paragraphs and a bulleted list of return values. It front-loads the purpose and every sentence adds value, achieving high information density without waste.
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 the presence of an output schema, the description still provides a clear explanation of the return value structure. The single parameter is fully described with usage context, making the tool definition complete for an AI agent to use 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?
The input schema only defines 'path' as a required string. The description adds significant meaning by specifying it is a '.wer file' and indicating the source ('from list_error_reports'), compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.
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 'read', the resource 'one Windows Error Reporting report', and details the specific return values (problem signature components). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_error_reports' and other diagnostic 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?
The description implicitly guides usage by stating that the 'path' argument should be a '.wer file, from list_error_reports', suggesting a typical workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be used over alternatives or exclude cases where it is inappropriate.
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 provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses read-only nature, filter behavior, and permission sensitivity for Security log. Lacks details on error handling or rate limits, but sufficient for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise introductory sentence followed by clear, bullet-like parameter descriptions. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.
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 8 parameters and no annotations, the description covers all necessary usage context, including the Security log permission condition. Output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose: hours (lookback window), levels (severity codes), event_ids, providers, contains, max_events, and message_limit. Provides actionable context (e.g., '1 critical, 2 error').
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 'Read events from one log with the usual filters applied', specifying the verb (read) and resource (events from one log). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_event_logs (which lists logs) and read_error_report (specific reports) by focusing on filtered event retrieval.
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?
Provides guidance on when to use (e.g., 'Use a larger window for rare crashes') and notes elevated permission requirement for Security log. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and explicitly states behavioral traits: 'opened for reading only,' binary values returned as hex and truncated, and non-existent keys handled without failure. This provides clear insight into tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with an Args section and clear parameter explanations. It is concise yet comprehensive, though slightly verbose with the docstring style. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.
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 the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately explains return behavior (binary truncated as hex) and error handling. It covers all parameters and usage context, making it a complete resource for selecting and invoking the tool.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the tool description compensates by explaining all parameters in detail: path format with hive abbreviations, view choices, and include_subkeys functionality. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states 'Read every value under a registry key,' specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'read_registry_value' by focusing on reading all values under a key, and mentions listing immediate child keys via include_subkeys.
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 explains parameter usage with examples (hive abbreviations, view options) and notes that non-existent keys are reported without failure. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling read_registry_value for single value access, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it reads only headers, is fast, returns specific data for kernel vs app dumps, and flags overlay/anti-cheat modules. No contradictions or hidden aspects.
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 well-structured with a main sentence, bulleted details, a performance note, and an args section. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded without unnecessary repetition.
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 the output schema exists, the description complements it by explaining return values for both dump types, noting special flags, and highlighting performance. It covers all aspects needed for an agent to understand the tool's output and usage.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains both parameters in the 'Args' section: path requires absolute path from list_crash_dumps, and include_modules returns the loaded-module list. This adds significant meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool reads dump file headers and reports crash information, with specific explanations for kernel and application dumps. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_crash_dumps and full stack analysis tools (WinDbg), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises when to use ('fast header reading') and when not to ('full stack analysis needs WinDbg'). While it does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools, it provides clear context for appropriate usage.
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/emyk/windows-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server