LearningSuite MCP Server
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, but a few pairs like get_member_courses vs get_member_course_info could be confused until reading descriptions. Overall, the boundaries are clear enough for an agent to select correctly.
Naming Consistency4/5Tools consistently use the learningsuite_ verb_noun pattern in snake_case, but there are minor deviations such as 'find_groups_by_name', 'check_auth', 'assign_badges', and 'send_push_notifications' that break the otherwise regular verb vocabulary.
Tool Count1/5With 64 tools, the server is extremely large for an MCP tool set, far exceeding typical scopes. Even for a comprehensive LMS, this many tools creates overwhelming selection complexity for agents.
Completeness2/5Several core lifecycle operations are missing: courses cannot be created, updated, or deleted; lessons have only create and list; groups lack update; bundles lack create/update; popups lack create/update/delete. These gaps will cause agent failures when performing standard administrative tasks.
Average 3.2/5 across 64 of 64 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral consequences. It only says 'Update a webhook subscription' without revealing whether the update is partial or full replacement, whether a valid subscription ID is required, what happens to omitted fields, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (single sentence), but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. It fails to include actionable details that would make the sentence earn its place, offering only a restatement of the tool's name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, one required), the lack of annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description provides no contextual completeness. It does not explain the update behavior, required fields beyond the schema, potential errors, or return values, leaving the agent without essential operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters (url, events, secret, enabled, subscriptionId), so the baseline score is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already documents the fields adequately, so no deduction is warranted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a webhook subscription' is a direct restatement of the tool name (learningsuite_update_webhook_subscription), adding no new information about what the update does, which fields are affected, or how it differs from sibling webhook tools. Since it merely paraphrases the name, it qualifies as a tautology rather than providing a clear, informative purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no indication of when to use this tool instead of the sibling webhook tools (create, get, delete, list, sample data). It lacks any guidance on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not mention pagination, filtering, return format, or any side effects. It adds no value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and is front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits important contextual information such as pagination and filtering, making it less helpful than it could be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain return behavior, pagination, and filtering, but it does none of these. For a list tool with three optional parameters, this is insufficient context for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes all three parameters (limit, offset, forumId) with individual descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get community posts', which clearly identifies the action and resource, but it is minimal and essentially restates the tool name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_community_forums by the resource type, but provides no details on scope or behavior.
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 such as list_community_forums or comment_on_post. There is no context for appropriate use cases, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it merely restates the tool name. It does not explain that deletion is destructive, irreversible, or what cascading effects it may have (e.g., removing enrollment or course access). This is a critical transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, but it is essentially a tautology of the tool name, using its single sentence without adding useful information. It is concise but not effective in using the available space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to clarify the scope of deletion, whether it is a hard delete, or what happens to related data like course memberships. Given the richness of sibling tools, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'memberId' has 100% schema coverage with a basic 'Member ID' description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 'Delete a member' clearly states the verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'delete_group' or 'remove_member_from_courses', though the resource type is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as 'remove_member_from_courses' or 'remove_members_from_groups'. There is no mention of prerequisites, caution, or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get community forums', offering no information about read safety, pagination behavior, authentication, or response format. The description is virtually a restatement of the tool name and gives no behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Get'. It is appropriately sized but so minimal that it essentially rephrases the tool name without earning its place. It lacks any additional context, making it borderline under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response contains, how pagination works, the default limit, or how areaId filtering behaves. The description could easily be augmented with a few sentences about usage without sacrificing conciseness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, with each parameter having a brief explanation. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, but since schema coverage is high, baseline is 3. The schema already documents limit, areaId, and offset, so no deduction is needed.
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 community forums, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_community_areas and list_community_posts by naming 'forums', though it is quite terse and adds little beyond the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the entire burden of disclosing behavior. It merely restates the tool's name in sentence form, offering no information about whether the operation is additive, requires permissions, is reversible, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief for a simple mutation, though it could have used the extra space to add behavioral context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks any explanation of return behavior, side effects, or prerequisites, and does not reference related tools. The schema covers parameters but not the broader context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (userId and badgeIds) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (assign) and the resources (badges to a user). It is distinct from the sibling remove_badges_from_user by virtue of the verb, but it does not explicitly call out this distinction or any nuances, so it does not fully merit a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, effects, or typical scenarios. There are many sibling tools for managing users and badges, and this description gives no context to help select this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
As a destructive tool with no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing effects. 'Delete a group' omits whether deletion is permanent, cascades to memberships or courses, or requires special permissions, making it dangerously underspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct phrase with no unnecessary words, making it concise. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices critical information, though this is more of a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the destructive nature of the tool and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention the consequences of deletion, leaving the agent without essential context for such a high-impact operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with groupId described simply as 'Group ID'. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states the action (delete) and the resource (group), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_group and list_groups. However, it lacks any additional scope or context, so it is clear but minimal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states the action without any contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get variables' with no mention of side effects, return format, permissions, or limitations. The verb implies read-only, but no specific behavioral traits are disclosed, leaving the agent without critical operational 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 a single concise sentence with no fluff or redundant repetition of the tool name. It is front-loaded and to the point, earning a full score for conciseness, though this brevity is a trade-off against completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description should provide more context about what variables are returned, how they relate to hub templates, or typical use cases. It lacks this context, making it only minimally adequate for an agent to understand the tool's role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'hubTemplateId' with a description 'Hub template ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The parameter is well-documented in the schema, so no deficiency exists here.
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 verb 'get' and the resource 'variables for a hub template', which is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like list_hub_templates or get_hub_template. However, it does not elaborate on what 'variables' refers to, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative getters or how it relates to other hub template operations. It is a standalone statement without context on prerequisites, use cases, or alternatives, offering no exclusions or situational direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update a member's information' merely restates the tool's name and provides no details about side effects, partial vs. full update semantics, permissions, or response behavior. It adds no value beyond the name itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is easy to parse and front-loaded with the action. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, which slightly detracts from the otherwise efficient structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain that memberId is required, that only provided fields are updated, or what the response contains. The tool is essentially a mutation with many options, yet the description provides only a bare overview.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% field descriptions, so parameters are well documented. The description adds no extra semantic value, but the schema already covers all parameter meanings, making this a baseline score.
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 'Update a member's information' clearly identifies the verb (update) and resource (member), and it is distinct from other member tools like create/get/delete. However, it does not specify any attributes beyond 'information', so it lacks the specificity that would distinguish it from a generic update operation.
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 create_member, delete_member, or other member-related tools. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., member must exist) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the raw action. It doesn't mention side effects like sending emails, permission requirements, idempotency, or what happens on duplicate enrollment. With no annotations available, the description carries full responsibility, but it is too minimal to inform safe usage.
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, clear sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutating tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what 'add' implies in terms of notifications, access timing, or potential errors. The schema covers parameter syntax but not the operational context needed to confidently invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter details are already present in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond phrases like 'one or more courses,' which merely echoes the array nature of courseIds. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Add a member to one or more courses.' It specifies a verb (add), resource (member), target (courses), and scope (one or more). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_member_from_courses or add_member_to_bundles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool (e.g., get_member_courses or update_member) would be more appropriate. The description only restates the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are not provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a group is created, but does not explain side effects, required permissions, return values, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (five words) and front-loaded, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than effective communication. It merely restates the tool name and does not provide any useful additional information, so it does not fully 'earn its place'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there are no annotations, no output schema, and the description is only five words, the agent lacks critical context about group creation semantics, authentication needs, success/failure behavior, and return data. This is inadequate for a create operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full coverage for both parameters (name and description), so the description does not need to compensate. The description itself adds no meaning beyond what the schema states, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 'Create a new group' clearly specifies the action (create) and the resource (group), making it distinct from sibling tools like create_member or create_hub. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and provides no additional context about what a group is or what creating it entails, so it does not fully differentiate itself beyond the resource name.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions that would help an agent decide between this and other create operations such as create_member or create_hub.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It merely restates the function and offers no details about read-only behavior, pagination, returned fields, or any filtering expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should clarify what a 'request' contains, whether all requests or only pending ones are returned, and pagination behavior. It currently leaves these aspects underspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema handles semantic meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context, meeting the baseline of 3.
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 access requests for a course, with a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_course_members, but 'access requests' is a distinct concept.
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 such as get_course_members or get_course_submissions. The intended scenario (e.g., reviewing pending requests) is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only states the action. It fails to mention return format, error handling, or whether the retrieval is read-only, and does not describe what a 'section' consists of.
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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It effectively front-loads the action and target.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the returned sections look like, how they relate to lessons or modules, or what happens when the module ID is invalid, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents moduleId with a simple description. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'all sections of a module,' making the purpose immediately clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_module_lessons and get_course_modules, though it does not explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as learningsuite_get_module_lessons or learningsuite_get_course_modules, nor does it state any prerequisites or conditions.
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 merely restates the tool name without disclosing any behavioral traits such as return format, error handling, authentication needs, or whether it is strictly read-only. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no redundant words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it misses the opportunity to add clarifying context, though this is a structural quality not a content failure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more detail about what the tool returns and how it behaves. It also fails to clarify how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_team_member' or 'get_member_by_email', leaving important contextual gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the single 'email' parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it neither improves nor harms parameter understanding.
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 'Get a team member by email' clearly identifies the action and resource with a specific lookup method. However, it does not distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like learningsuite_get_team_member or learningsuite_get_member_by_email, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about differences between team members and regular members, nor when to use email lookup versus ID lookup, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely states 'Create a webhook subscription' with no information about side effects, required authentication, validation rules, or what happens on success/failure. This is a bare tautology with no additional behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no redundant words, front-loading the core action and object. It is optimally concise, though it could be expanded with contextual details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a webhook subscription is, what events will trigger it, or any response details. The agent would need to rely on schema property names (url, events, secret) and sibling tool names to infer context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters (url, events, secret) have schema descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') with a specific resource ('webhook subscription'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update/delete/list/get webhook subscriptions. The verb-resource structure is unambiguous and matches the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. There is no mention of how this relates to other webhook subscription tools or what event types are supported. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get all groups' only implies a read-only operation and offers no details about pagination, response format, or permissions, which are important for safe usage.
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 extremely short and to the point, which is good for brevity, but it lacks explanatory context that would help an agent use the tool correctly. It is not overly verbose, yet it is under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what information is returned, how pagination works, or when to prefer this tool over find_groups_by_name, leaving important gaps for a simple list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters (limit and offset), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no information beyond what the schema already provides, but it also does not need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a list operation for all groups, with a specific verb (get) and resource (groups). The word 'all' distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_groups_by_name, which implies filtering by name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_groups_by_name. It does not mention pagination or any conditions for use, leaving the agent without selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether courses are appended or replace existing ones, whether group validation is performed, permission requirements, or error handling. This leaves significant ambiguity for a mutation operation.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no filler. However, it is so minimal that it essentially restates the tool name, offering little value beyond brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only two simple parameters and no output schema, so the description could be minimal. Yet it still lacks important context about whether the operation is additive or replacement, and how it behaves if some course IDs are invalid. This leaves the agent under-informed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with 'groupId' and 'courseIds' fully described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add courses to a group' is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly indicates the operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'learningsuite_remove_courses_from_group' and 'learningsuite_add_bundles_to_group' by explicitly mentioning 'courses' and 'group'.
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 such as adding members to courses or adding bundles to groups. There is no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description merely restates the tool's purpose without disclosing any behavioral traits such as pagination, response format, authorization requirements, or behavior for invalid group IDs. It adds no value beyond the tool name.
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, clear sentence with no redundant words or filler. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the essential 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?
This is a simple one-parameter getter with no output schema or annotations. The description is minimally viable but lacks important context such as whether it returns full course objects or just IDs, whether it includes unpublished courses, and any pagination or error behavior. It is not as incomplete as a mutation tool but still leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides a description for groupId ('Group ID'), giving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get all courses of a group') with clear scope (group). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_member_courses by explicitly targeting courses associated with a group, not a member.
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 such as get_member_courses or list_published_courses. The description only implies the context via the groupId parameter, but does not state exclusions or when another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but fails to mention the effect of includeGroups, error behavior, or permissions. This is minimal transparency beyond the verb.
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 clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word 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?
For a simple get operation, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits context about the return value (no output schema) and does not clarify how it differs from learningsuite_get_team_member_by_email. Additional detail about includeGroups or edge cases would make it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage of parameters (email and includeGroups) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a member by email address' clearly specifies the action (get) and resource (member), with the identifier (email) stated. However, it does not distinguish this from similar tools like get_team_member_by_email, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_member or list_members. The description only implies use when you have an email address, but no explicit context or exclusions 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the purpose and gives no behavioral details such as whether the sample data is static, generated, or dependent on existing subscriptions. It also does not disclose return format or potential errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it highly 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 no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any context about what the sample data represents or how it might be used, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's full purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the only parameter, eventType, with an enum of valid values and a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning to this parameter, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Get sample data') and resource ('webhook event type'). It is specific and understandable, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling webhook tools like get_webhook_subscription. This aligns with a clear purpose without sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases like previewing webhook payloads for configuration or testing, nor any exclusions. The description is purely declarative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get all members with optional filtering and pagination' and does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, default behaviors for filters, or whether groups are included by default. This is minimal disclosure for a list 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?
The description is a single, focused sentence: 'Get all members with optional filtering and pagination'. It contains no redundant information, front-loads the core purpose, and is easily scannable. Perfect conciseness for a minimal tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a straightforward list operation with five well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description is adequate for the basic purpose but lacks context about return values, pagination behavior, or how it relates to sibling tools. Given the moderate complexity, more guidance would improve completeness, but the schema covers the parameter semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (limit, offset, includeGroups, days_not_logged_in_gte, include_never_logged_in) having a descriptive comment. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all members with optional filtering and pagination' clearly states the action (get), the resource (all members), and the optional scoping (filtering and pagination). It distinguishes from sibling tools like learningsuite_list_team_members by specifying 'all members', and from get_member by implying a list operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all sibling list tools, so it doesn't achieve a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as learningsuite_list_team_members or learningsuite_get_member. The description provides no context for selection, no exclusions, and no mentions of preferred use cases like large member lists or needing group inclusion.
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 fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Get all popups,' which implies a read operation but provides no details about pagination, ordering, inclusion of inactive popups, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with optional pagination parameters.
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 short sentence with no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse. It is front-loaded and concise, though it may be too terse to cover all necessary context, but that is addressed in other dimensions.
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 list tool with two optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. It does not explain pagination semantics (e.g., default limit, whether 'all' includes pagination), nor does it mention any prerequisites. Given the low complexity, it is adequate but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents limit and offset with descriptions ('Maximum to return' and 'Offset for pagination'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 'Get all popups' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (popups), indicating a list operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_popup which likely retrieves a single popup. However, it lacks explicit mention of the list nature or any filtering, so it is clear but not maximally informative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_popup or trigger_popup. No context or exclusions are given, so the agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists published courses, but does not reveal any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, permissions, or whether the result is a full list or subject to limits. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it is minimal and does not add extra value beyond the tool name.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but has gaps. It does not mention whether the list is ordered, whether archived courses are included, or what the response structure looks like. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description could provide more 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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description correctly implies that no parameters are needed, and it does not need to explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema shows.
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 'Get all published courses' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (all published courses), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools that handle members, groups, bundles, etc. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other list-type tools like 'list_bundles' or 'list_members', and it largely paraphrases the tool name without adding new context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparison to other list tools. Since the description only states what the tool does, usage context is entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It simply restates the tool name ('Remove badges from a user') and adds no behavioral details such as whether removal is permanent, if it can be undone, required permissions, 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action, containing no fluff. However, it is a near-verbatim copy of the tool name, making it somewhat under-specified despite being concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks information about return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances, and does not provide enough context beyond the schema for an agent to fully predict tool behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both userId and badgeIds. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (remove) and the resource (badges from a user), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'learningsuite_assign_badges_to_user' by being its inverse operation.
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 does not mention it is the counterpart to 'assign_badges_to_user' or give context on use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Add bundles to a group' without explaining whether the operation is additive or replaces existing bundles, whether duplicates are handled, side effects, permissions, or return values. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is well-structured and immediately communicates the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It lacks information about the effect of the operation, return values, or any prerequisites, making it risky for an agent to invoke without further context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters (groupId, bundleIds) clearly described as 'Group ID' and 'Array of bundle IDs'. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 'Add bundles to a group' clearly specifies the action (add), the object (bundles), and the target (a group). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_courses_to_group or add_member_to_bundles by naming the exact resource and relationship.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., group and bundles must exist), or exclusions. The description merely states the action without contextual advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (add) without mentioning side effects, such as whether adding is additive, whether it replaces existing bundle memberships, how overrides (accessUntilOverride, etc.) behave, or what the return value is. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and target, making it easy to scan. It earns its place as a terse but clear summary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is only 8 words long. It omits crucial context about the operation's behavior, such as what happens if a member already belongs to a bundle, whether notifications are sent (only implied by the disableAccessNotificationEmail parameter), and what response to expect. The schema compensates for parameter coverage, but the description remains incomplete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides descriptions for all 6 parameters, achieving 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat parameter meanings. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already offers, so it remains at the baseline of 3.
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 action: 'Add a member to one or more bundles.' It uses a specific verb (add) and resource (member, bundles), and the phrase 'one or more' adds useful scope beyond the tool name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_member_from_bundles and add_member_to_courses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_member_to_courses) or any conditions for use. It only restates the tool's basic function, offering no contextual cues or exclusions. This is essentially no guidance beyond the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'create' without mentioning side effects, required permissions, failure modes, or what the response contains. For a mutating operation, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and object without any filler. It communicates the core purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and the mutating nature of the tool, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the return value, required preparation steps, or the role of template variables, leaving the agent without crucial context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with all three parameters having descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema; it does not clarify how to structure the 'variables' object or where 'hubTemplateId' comes from, but the schema already provides basic 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Create a new hub') and adds 'from a template', which clearly differentiates this tool from other create tools like creating groups, members, or lessons. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as listing hub templates or retrieving template variables first. The phrase 'from a template' implies a template ID is needed, but it does not instruct the agent on how to obtain or validate it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'create', implying mutation, but does not mention side effects like course publishing, required existing sections, or potential irreversible actions. The 'immediatelyPublishCourse' parameter hints at a side effect, but the description does not surface it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the key action and context. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is extremely minimal. It lacks information about return values, prerequisites (e.g., section must exist), or the meaning of key parameters beyond the schema. This is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, but does not need to compensate.
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 a specific action (create) and resource (lesson) within a context (course section), using a verb+resource structure. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_group or create_member by focusing on lessons.
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 simply states what it does without mentioning context, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., get_module_lessons) would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'create,' which implies a write operation, but fails to mention important nuances like whether a welcome email is sent, whether duplicates are handled, or what authentication/permissions are required. The agent is left with minimal understanding 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 is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the existence of control flags like ignoreIfAlreadyExists or disableLoginEmail, nor does it mention the return value. The description does not adequately cover the tool's complexity for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already provide. It does not highlight key parameters or clarify their usage, so it adds no extra value.
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 'Create a new member in LearningSuite' clearly states a specific verb (create) and resource (member), making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_member and delete_member by indicating a creation action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use update_member instead. There is no mention of prerequisites, no exclusions, and no contextual advice, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a create (mutation) operation but does not disclose side effects, permissions, idempotency, or return behavior. For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Create') and clearly states the resource. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the tool lacks critical context such as return values, error behaviors, or when overrides are appropriate. The description is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for a fully safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for its 3 parameters, each with a brief description. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and identifies the resource ('module unlock override') and target ('for a member'). It clearly distinguishes this from the many sibling tools, as there is no other override creation tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states what it does without contextual use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get all bundles' only indicates a read operation but does not disclose pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or what 'all' means in terms of scope (e.g., all visible to the user). This is minimal and lacks behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At three words, the description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the key information. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. This is exemplary conciseness.
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 minimal complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose but omits any behavioral details like pagination or filters. For a simple list endpoint, this is adequate but not comprehensive; more context would help an agent set expectations for the response.
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 properties, so there are no parameters to define. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed, and the 100% schema coverage and zero-parameter count mean the description does not need to compensate.
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 'Get all bundles' clearly states the action (get) and resource (bundles) with a specific verb, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_groups or list_members by resource name. It is not a tautology because it paraphrases the tool name with a slightly different wording, but it provides no extra scope details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The existence of many sibling list tools implies bundles as the unique focus, but that is not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get all roles' and does not confirm safety (read-only), mention permissions, pagination, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is as concise as possible while still conveying the core purpose, earning a high score for structure.
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 low complexity (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally viable but lacks behavioral context like return format or permissions. It tells the agent what it does but not what to expect, so it falls short of being fully 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema reflects that. The description matching 'all roles' with no qualifiers is sufficient — there are no parameter semantics to explain, so the baseline of 4 applies.
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 'Get all roles' clearly states a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose apparent. It is distinct from the many sibling list tools because it references roles specifically, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. For a list operation the intended use is implied, but there are no explicit context cues or exclusion statements to help an agent choose this tool over similar list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any side effects, such as whether the courses themselves are deleted, whether the operation is idempotent, or if specific permissions are required. For a mutation tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is exceptionally concise and gets straight to the point. The structure earns a high score purely on efficiency, even though it lacks contextual depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the caller can expect (e.g., response body, success/failure behavior, idempotency). It provides none of this. Additionally, there is no mention of relationships to other group operations (e.g., when to use remove vs. add). For a mutation tool with minimal annotations, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (groupId and courseIds are described in the schema). The description does not add any semantic nuance beyond what the schema already provides. It simply restates that courses are removed from a group, which the parameter meanings already imply. Baseline 3 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 the action ('Remove'), the object ('courses'), and the scope ('from a group'). It is explicitly distinguished from sibling tools like learningsuite_add_courses_to_group (the opposite operation) and learningsuite_get_group_courses (read operation). Despite being terse, it unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_courses_to_group or get_group_courses. No context is provided about prerequisites (e.g., group existence) or when removal is appropriate. The description is purely a statement of action with no usage recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action (removal, implying destructiveness) but fails to disclose side effects, permanence, permissions, or consequences for the popup or member. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits details about error handling, idempotency, edge cases, and the broader effect of the operation, making it incomplete for an AI agent's decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters have descriptions ('Popup ID', 'Member ID'), though these are tautological. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but because coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Remove' and clearly identifies the resource ('popup trigger') and target ('member'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'learningsuite_trigger_popup' and aligns with the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context, exclusions, or how it differs from related popup or member management tools, leaving the agent to infer solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the custom app requirement and does not explain side effects, permission needs, delivery behavior, or what happens when no user/group IDs are specified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant wording, front-loading the primary action and constraint effectively. It is appropriately concise for the information it contains.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a side-effectful mutation tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is too minimal to cover essential context such as target selection behavior, required permissions, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high schema 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 tool sends push notifications to users, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools as the only one for this purpose, and adds a relevant constraint about requiring a custom app.
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, and no exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned. The only context is the prerequisite 'requires custom app', which is not a usage recommendation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not mention any side effects (e.g., whether the popup is displayed to the member, triggers a notification, or requires specific permissions), nor does it describe return values or failure modes. It is a minimal statement of action without behavioral nuance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that communicates the core action without waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could have included more guidance without becoming verbose.
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 two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it lacks context about when to use this tool versus others and lacks any note on expected outcomes or side effects, making it marginally complete but not fully informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for its two parameters ('Popup ID' and 'Member ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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 'Trigger a popup for a member' uses a specific verb ('Trigger') with a clear resource ('popup') and target ('member'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_popups' and 'remove_popup_trigger' by indicating the specific action of triggering, not listing or removing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool should be preferred over others like 'get_popup' or 'remove_popup_trigger'. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool's name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It only repeats the action implied by the name, providing no additional behavioral details such as whether deletion is permanent, if it triggers side effects, or if special permissions are required. A destructive action with zero safety annotations merits more disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is the appropriate size for the tool's simplicity.
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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks any context about the result of deletion, error conditions, or whether deletion is reversible. It is adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the parameter 'subscriptionId' described as 'Subscription ID'. The description adds no additional context beyond the schema, and the schema already fully documents the parameter, so baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('webhook subscription'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, get, update, and list webhook subscriptions. It is concise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, prerequisites, or context for deletion. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it. For a simple delete operation, some context (e.g., 'Use to remove a webhook subscription when it is no longer needed') would help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain whether the search is exact or partial, case sensitivity, pagination, return format, or error handling. The agent remains unaware of key behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with zero fluff, using a single imperative sentence. However, it is arguably too minimal, lacking additional structured guidance that would improve clarity without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description does not cover essential context such as matching behavior, whether the operation is read-only, or how results are returned. With no annotations to compensate, the description is insufficient for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the single parameter 'name' with description 'Group name to search for', giving 100% coverage. The tool description merely repeats 'by name' and adds no additional semantic detail, so it does not elevate beyond the baseline.
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 finds groups by name, with a specific verb (Find) and resource (groups), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_groups by the by-name filter. This is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when searching for a group by its name, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_groups or provide exclusions. The usage context is inferred but not explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and 'all modules' indicates the scope, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or whether the result depends on member access. Basic transparency with few details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. Every word contributes to the purpose.
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 one-parameter get tool, the description is functional but thin. It does not explain what a 'module' is, how results are structured, or how this tool relates to the sibling 'get_course_modules_for_member'. The lack of an output schema further reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes the single parameter 'courseId' with 'Course ID' at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all modules of a course' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (modules of a course). It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_course_modules_for_member' by focusing on the course level, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.
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 like 'learningsuite_get_course_modules_for_member' or 'learningsuite_get_module_sections'. The description simply states what it does without any context on selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential errors, pagination, or what 'access information' entails. The verb 'Get' implies a read, but no explicit safety or side-effect information is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or repetition. It is 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.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details (e.g., response format, error cases), making it only minimally complete for an agent to invoke correctly with full confidence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single parameter memberId with a clear description ('Member ID'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond this, but the schema is sufficient, so a baseline of 3 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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('all bundles of a member'), and adds 'with access information' to specify the returned data. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like learningsuite_get_member_courses (courses vs bundles) and learningsuite_get_bundle_members (reverse lookup).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools for similar tasks. The usage context is only implicit from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Get' and nothing else—no detail about read-only nature, error handling for invalid IDs, response format, or permissions. The description lacks any context beyond the bare 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?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded: 'Get a webhook subscription by ID'. It contains no filler or redundant information, efficiently communicating the core purpose.
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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It does not indicate what the returned webhook subscription object looks like, what happens if not found, or any relevant details. While the tool's simplicity lowers the bar, the lack of any additional context or output information makes it merely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with 'subscriptionId' already described as 'Subscription ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, merely repeating 'by ID'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't compensate.
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 'Get a webhook subscription by ID' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('webhook subscription'), clearly indicating a single-read operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_webhook_subscriptions' (list all) and 'create/update/delete' by specifying 'by ID'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used when you have a known subscription ID, nor does it contrast with list_webhook_subscriptions or get_webhook_sample_data. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'batch operation' and does not mention irreversibility, permission requirements, or downstream effects on course or bundle enrollments. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that immediately states the action and scope. 'Batch operation' is a minimal redundancy with 'multiple members from multiple groups', but the overall conciseness is exemplary with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, and the schema fully covers the two required array parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain return values or behavioral side effects, making it minimally viable but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters ('Array of group IDs' and 'Array of member IDs') at 100% coverage. The description's 'batch operation' adds little semantic value beyond what the schema conveys, so the baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb ('remove') and clearly names the resources ('members from groups') with 'batch operation' signaling the multiple-to-multiple scope. This distinguishes it from related tools like 'learningsuite_add_members_to_groups' and 'learningsuite_remove_member_from_courses'.
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 such as adding members to groups or removing a member from courses. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints about when a batch operation is appropriate.
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 context. It only states the basic action and doesn't mention permissions, whether a reply requires a parent comment, rate limits, or the response structure.
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?
One short sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the verb and resource immediately, making it scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple write operation with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. However, it could mention the reply use case or prerequisites (e.g., needing to be a member) for fuller context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema documents all three parameters (postId, content, parentCommentId) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'comment' and identifies the resource 'community post', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that manage members, groups, courses, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as listing posts or replying to comments. The parentCommentId parameter implies reply functionality but is not explained in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions the ordering (newest first) but fails to disclose pagination behavior despite having limit/offset parameters. The phrase 'all submissions' could mislead an agent into thinking it returns everything in one call, while pagination implies multiple calls may be needed. No information is given about return shape, permissions, or side effects (though 'get' implies read-only).
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 wasted words. It conveys purpose and a key behavioral attribute efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with pagination. It doesn't explain what constitutes a submission, how to retrieve all pages, or what the response looks like. The tool is simple, but the description leaves significant gaps that could lead to incorrect invocation or incomplete results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but it does provide useful context about ordering. Since the schema already handles the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 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 'Get all submissions in a course (newest first)' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on members, groups, modules, or other entities. The parenthetical adds precise ordering information, making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: when you need course submissions, this is the tool. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusion criteria. No sibling tool is mentioned as an alternative, so context is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description is a simple statement of intent. It does not disclose any behavioral details such as whether the removal is reversible, how multiple entity types are handled in one call, or what happens if invalid IDs are passed. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no redundant words and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description needs to provide more context. It fails to mention prerequisites, potential side effects, or the relationship between the optional parameters. The tool is a mutation operation, so the absence of behavioral details makes it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description merely echoes the parameter types without clarifying how they interact (e.g., whether at least one of the optional arrays is required, or if all can be combined).
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 specifies the action ('Remove access') and the resource ('from a hub'), enumerating the target types ('members, groups, or bundles'). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'learningsuite_add_hub_accesses' and other removal tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for revoking hub access but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. No comparison with sibling tools like 'learningsuite_add_hub_accesses' is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and batch nature, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, error handling, or whether existing memberships are affected. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that conveys the essential operation without any wasted words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.
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 tool with only two array parameters and no output schema, the description adequately identifies the operation. However, it omits useful details about batch behavior such as whether the operation is atomic or partial failures are possible, and how duplicates are handled, which would make it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both 'memberIds' and 'groupIds' clearly described as arrays of IDs. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the batch nature, so it provides minimal value over the schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (adding members to groups) and specifically notes it's a batch operation, distinguishing it from single-member operations and the sibling remove tool. The verb+resource structure is precise and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The term 'batch operation' implies it should be used when adding multiple members to multiple groups at once, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like single-add tools or removal tools. No mention of exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, permission requirements, pagination behavior, or edge cases (e.g., course not found). It simply states what it does without revealing any behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes relevant scope. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple getter, but the description does not cover pagination (limit/offset) or clarify what 'access' refers to in the response. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, a bit more context on return shape or usage considerations would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond the schema, only hinting at 'optional progress info' which maps to includeProgress. Thus it meets the baseline but does not go further.
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 specifies the action (Get) and resource (members for a course), with scope (access and optional progress info). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_member_courses, which retrieves courses for a member.
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 when you need course members, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. Context from sibling names offers some direction, but the description itself lacks explicit 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 provided, and the description only says 'Get a member by ID.' It does not disclose what the response contains, whether includeGroups changes the output, or any limitations. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated, leaving the agent without sufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and key scoping information. It contains no redundant words and is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.
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?
While the tool is simple and the description is clear, there is no output schema and the description does not mention return values or the effect of the includeGroups parameter. This leaves moderate gaps for a tool that could benefit from a brief note on response content or usage context, but the minimal description is still somewhat adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Since the description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a member by ID' clearly states the action (get), resource (member), and the identifier used (ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_member_by_email and list_team_members, which use different lookup methods or scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a member ID is available, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_member_by_email. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so the usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get' which implies read-only, but does not explain what 'access info' means (e.g., entitlements, expiry, access check date) or what 'progress info' includes. The optional dateForAccessCheck param suggests behavior (checking access on a specific date) that is not disclosed in the description, leaving ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. No filler or redundancy; every word is purposeful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three parameters, an optional one, and no output schema. The description is adequate for a simple getter but leaves gaps: it does not clarify the optional dateForAccessCheck behavior, what access/progress information is returned, or how it relates to other member/course tools. More detail would be needed for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description itself does not add meaning beyond the schema; it fails to explain how dateForAccessCheck affects the result. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter info, but no additional value is provided.
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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('access and progress info for a member in a specific course'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_member_courses (list courses) and get_course_modules_for_member (modules) by focusing on access and progress for a single member-course pair.
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 intended use case is implied by the description but not explicitly stated. No mention of when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. While the name and description convey the scenario, there is no explicit guidance on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It adds 'with access and progress info,' which clarifies the returned data beyond just listing courses. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or the effect of dateForAccessCheck, which could be important for accurate invocation.
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 redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and the extra data provided, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
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 read operation with fully schema-documented parameters, the description is adequate but not rich. It mentions access and progress info but omits output structure, pagination defaults, or the meaning of dateForAccessCheck. Given there is no output schema, slightly more detail would improve completeness, but the current description is not severely lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'all courses,' and does not elaborate on how limit, offset, or dateForAccessCheck affect results. Thus, the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get all courses for a member with access and progress info.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like learningsuite_get_member_course_info (which likely retrieves a single course) and learningsuite_get_course_members (reverse relationship).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or comparison with related tools such as get_member_course_info or get_course_members. The description only states what it does, leaving usage entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level action without mentioning pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or return format. The verb 'get' implies a read operation, but no additional behavioral context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It is a model of conciseness and structure.
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 zero-parameter list operation, the description is minimally adequate, but it leaves gaps: no output schema exists, so the return value's structure is undefined, and the meaning of 'community areas' is not clarified. The description is complete enough for a trivial tool but lacks any contextual depth that would help an agent use it effectively.
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 zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline score of 4 applies because with no parameters, there is no semantic burden for the description to bear.
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 'Get all community areas' has a specific verb ('get'), a resource ('community areas'), and a scope ('all'). It clearly distinguishes itself from all sibling tools since no other tool mentions community areas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_community_forums or list_community_posts. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only restates the operation implied by the name, omitting any details about return format, pagination, 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?
A single, direct sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the essential action and scope.
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 zero-parameter list tool, the description allows invocation, but it does not describe the return value structure or any caveats. Given no output schema, this missing information is a slight gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters, and the empty schema already provides complete coverage. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to clarify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all community badges') to state exactly what the tool does. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that assign/remove badges or list other community entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. It simply states the action without any contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, but it only states 'Get all hub templates' and adds little beyond the tool name. It does not disclose return format, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects, though it does imply a read-only 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool. Every word earns its place, with no superfluous content.
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 list tool without output schema, the description minimally conveys the operation. However, it lacks any additional context such as what a hub template is, whether pagination is used, or how results are formatted, making it adequate but not 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description need not explain parameters, and none are present in the schema, so no gap exists.
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 'Get all hub templates' uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('hub templates') and scope ('all'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like learningsuite_list_hubs which lists hubs, not templates.
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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or what happens on partial failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It clearly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
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 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic action and parameters. However, it lacks behavioral details like reversibility or idempotency, making it adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (memberId, bundleIds) having descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 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 'Remove a member from one or more bundles' uses a specific verb (Remove) and clearly identifies the resource (member) and target (bundles). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_member_to_bundles and remove_member_from_courses by precisely stating the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for removing members from bundles but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The usage is inferred from the action, but no alternatives or context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention idempotency, whether access is additive or replacing, prerequisites like existence of hubId or entity IDs, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with 11 words, front-loaded and directly to the point. Every word earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With four parameters and no output schema, the description should explain expected behavior, such as whether at least one of groupIds/bundleIds/memberIds must be provided, whether the operation is immediate, or what the response contains. The description is too sparse to be fully contextual for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by mapping parameters to 'members, groups, or bundles,' but it does not clarify relationships or requirements beyond the property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Add access to a hub') and specifies the recipients ('members, groups, or bundles'), using a specific verb and resource combination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like learningsuite_remove_hub_accesses and other access-granting tools for courses or bundles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for granting hub access to various entity types, implying its use case. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool mentions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 the action without disclosing any behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, return format, or permissions. The word 'Get' implies read-only, but no additional context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It earns its place by clearly conveying the tool's purpose in minimal 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?
For a simple one-parameter read operation with full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It clearly states what the tool does, though it does not mention the return type or any edge cases. Given the low complexity, this is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema describes moduleId as 'Module ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already fully documents the 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?
The description 'Get all lessons of a module' uses a specific verb (get) and resource (lessons) with a clear scope (module). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_course_modules and get_module_sections by naming the exact entity being retrieved.
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 no explicit when-to-use or alternatives, but the action is straightforward enough that usage is implied from the name and description. It does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls short of clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Get a popup by ID' and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the popup is not found, or any side effects. The naming convention ('get') implies a read operation, but the description itself provides no explicit behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded and contains zero fluff or redundant content. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise for a simple getter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly sufficient. It tells the agent how to retrieve a specific popup, and the schema documents the parameter. However, it does not describe the return value or error behavior, which would be helpful but not critical for such a straightforward operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the sole parameter 'popupId' with type string and description 'Popup ID'. The description's 'by ID' adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline 3 applies, and the description does not exceed it.
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 'Get a popup by ID' uses a specific verb ('get') and identifies the resource ('popup') and the lookup method ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_popups (which lists all popups) and trigger_popup (which manipulates a popup). It is not merely a tautology of the name because it specifies the identifying criterion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when you need a single popup and know its ID, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context. This is borderline between no guidance (2) and implied usage (3), but the 'by ID' hint gives a slight edge.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'Remove a member from one or more courses' but does not mention side effects, reversibility, permissions required, or behavior if the member is not enrolled. This is a mutation tool with no safety context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that clearly communicates the action and scope. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two clear parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. However, the lack of annotations means it does not fully address potential side effects or failure modes, so it is not a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both memberId and courseIds described directly in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond confirming 'one or more courses' matches the array parameter. Since the schema already documents parameters, the description does not need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Remove' with a clear resource 'member from one or more courses'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_member_to_courses and remove_member_from_bundles by specifying the target (courses) and the action (remove).
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 usage is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as learningsuite_remove_member_from_bundles or learningsuite_remove_courses_from_group. 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, response format, or what the 'authorization info' contains. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool without annotation safety hints.
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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and is efficiently structured.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should clarify return values. It mentions 'authorization info' but does not specify its content or format. For a simple auth check, this is minimal but incomplete.
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 zero parameters, and the schema confirms this. The description does not need to explain parameters, and no additional meaning is required. Baseline 4 for no parameters 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 the function: checking API key validity and retrieving authorization info. It uses specific verbs ('check', 'get') and identifies a distinct resource, distinguishing it from sibling CRUD tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for auth validation but does not explicitly state when to use it or exclude alternatives. No prerequisites, context, or comparisons with other tools 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 of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention pagination, ordering, error behavior, rate limits, or any authentication requirements. For a tool that may return a potentially large list, these omissions are significant.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the essential information and is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
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?
With no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return value or any important limits. It does neither, leaving the agent to assume a standard list of subscription objects. For a simple tool, this is adequate but with clear gaps regarding output structure and potential volume.
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 0 parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none. It correctly implies that no input 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 'Get all webhook subscriptions' uses a specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'webhook subscriptions,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_webhook_subscription (single), create/update/delete. It fully clarifies the scope as 'all' rather than a specific one.
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 tool is self-evidently used to list all webhook subscriptions, with no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. The context of sibling tools implies it, but there is no direct mention of alternatives or exclusions. Because this is a simple list operation, the implied usage is sufficient for a minimum viable score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation ('Get') and mentions the visibility info, but it does not disclose potential caveats such as whether modules are filtered or if all modules are returned with visibility flags.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, and contains no redundant phrases. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter read tool, the description is mostly adequate but lacks explicit details about the return structure beyond 'visibility info'. It does not clarify whether 'all modules' includes all regardless of visibility, and no output schema exists to clarify. Still, it is generally complete for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to elaborate. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and the schema descriptions are minimal ('Course ID', 'Member ID').
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 all modules of a course with member-specific visibility info, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `get_course_modules`, which lacks the member visibility aspect.
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 when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives is provided. The tool name and description imply its use case, but there is no mention of when to choose this over `get_course_modules` or other member-focused tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a non-mutating read operation, but the description does not disclose return format, error behavior, or which fields are included. It is adequate but 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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the action and scope, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly identifies the input and action. The only slight gap is not stating that the response returns the team member object, but this is implied by the tool's name and behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents the single 'userId' parameter with 100% coverage. The description's 'by ID' reinforces the parameter's purpose but adds little beyond the schema's 'User ID' description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving a single team member by ID. The phrase 'by ID' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_team_member_by_email' and 'list_team_members'.
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?
Usage is implied: use this tool when you have a team member's ID and need the team member record. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like 'get_team_member_by_email' or 'get_member', providing no exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but it only states the action without disclosing details like authentication requirements, potential pagination, or the exact nature of 'published'. However, the word 'published' does add a filtering behavior, which is minimal but useful.
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 clear sentence with no redundant or irrelevant content. It is highly concise and front-loaded with the essential 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?
Given the low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It does not mention potential limitations like large data handling, but for a simple list operation, this is adequate.
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 zero parameters, making parameter semantics trivial. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed, and the schema coverage is complete by default.
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 "Get all published hubs" uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('published hubs'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'learningsuite_list_hub_templates' and 'learningsuite_create_hub' by specifying the resource scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent without contextual selection cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does clarify that the returned members are restricted to 'admin zone access,' which adds meaningful scope. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether pagination is applied, or any side effects, so transparency is only partially addressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It avoids any redundancy or filler, earning its place with the clarifying parenthetical.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description clearly states what the tool returns (team members with admin zone access). It lacks explicit mention of return format or pagination behavior, but these are not critical for a basic list operation, making it reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes both parameters (limit and offset) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no information about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high schema 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('team members'), and further clarifies that team members are 'users with admin zone access.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_members' and 'get_team_member', which serve different scopes.
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 parenthetical definition hints at when to use this tool (when you need admin zone users) and implicitly differentiates from 'list_members' for all members. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or what alternatives exist, leaving usage context mostly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'with access info' hints at the return content. However, it does not explain pagination behavior, return format, or any potential side effects, leaving significant behavioral details undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action and key detail. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary prose.
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 list/gamut tool, the description adequately states the purpose and mentions 'access info' as a return aspect. However, without an output schema or annotation, it lacks details on the exact structure of the returned members and access info, and the pagination behavior is only implied by the parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage, describing each parameter (bundleId, limit, offset). The description adds no extra meaning to these parameters, so it does not exceed the baseline of relying on 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 action (Get), the resource (members of a bundle), and adds a specific detail (with access info). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_member_bundles, which retrieves bundles for a member, 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 context of when to use the tool is clear: when you need members of a bundle. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the straightforward phrasing implies the intended use. The tool's name also aligns with the description, reinforcing its role without confusion.
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/fabienbutz/learningsuite-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server