Fivetran MCP Server

Official

by fivetran

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes grouped by resource type (connections, destinations, groups, etc.), but some overlap exists: e.g., 'list_all_connections_in_group' and 'list_connections' both list connections, and 'connection_column_config' vs 'modify_connection_column_config' could confuse agents without careful reading.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming is mostly snake_case with verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, modify_), but several tools break this: 'connection_details', 'connection_column_config', and 'connection_state' are noun-noun or noun-verb meaning GET operations, creating inconsistency.
Tool Count2/5
77 tools is extremely high for an MCP server, far exceeding the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the Fivetran API is complex, this number likely overwhelms agents and increases selection errors.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers CRUD and lifecycle operations for most Fivetran resources (groups, connections, destinations, transformations, webhooks, agents, logs), including metadata and setup tests. Minor gaps like missing user creation outside group context are acceptable.
Average 3.7/5 across 77 of 77 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 3 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 14 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
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description warns of a WRITE OPERATION and mentions auto-approving certificates, but this contradicts the claim of 'without making any configuration changes'. No details on side effects, permissions, or output behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Reasonably concise with a front-loaded warning. However, the description includes redundant phrasing and inaccurate parameter references, which detracts from efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so the description should clarify what the test result looks like or next steps. It only mentions running the test, leaving the agent without knowledge of the response format or success/failure indicators.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. However, the description incorrectly mentions 'trust_certificates' and 'trust_fingerprints' parameters that are not in the schema, misleading the agent. It adds no useful semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it runs setup tests for an existing connection and that it tests without configuration changes. However, the mention of optional parameters not in the input schema creates confusion, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like run_destination_setup_tests or run_setup_tests_log_service. The warning 'Confirm with user' is present but no explicit when or when-not 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'returns details' without mentioning auth, side effects, or the complex schema_file requirement, which is critical for correct invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, but it lacks necessary detail to be fully informative. It front-loads the core purpose but fails to elaborate on critical aspects.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the schema_file parameter's unusual requirement to read an external file, the description should explain this prerequisite. Without it, the description is incomplete for correct tool usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, fitting the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns details of a hybrid deployment agent, distinguishing it from siblings like create/list/delete. However, 'details' is vague and could be more specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites or context, such as needing to read a schema file first.
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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Returns metadata' but fails to mention the required prerequisite of first reading a schema file, the read-only nature, or any other side effects. The `schema_file` parameter's requirement is a significant behavioral detail omitted from the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a critical prerequisite (reading a schema file) and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover the required preparatory step, nor does it describe the format or structure of the returned metadata. This lack of completeness could hinder correct tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The crucial instruction for `schema_file` is only in the parameter description, not in the tool description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as description provides no extra semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it returns metadata of configuration and authorization parameters for a specified connector type. The verb 'Returns' and noun phrase specify the resource and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like metadata_connectors which list connector types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it highlight the prerequisite step of reading the schema file before invoking the tool (critical for correct invocation). This omission could lead to incorrect usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It fails to mention the required schema file prerequisite, which is a significant behavioral constraint, and does not disclose rate limits, authentication, or other traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is fairly concise in three sentences and front-loads the main action. However, it omits critical prerequisite information, which hurts its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter with full schema coverage, the description adequately explains the output. However, it misses the essential prerequisite step and provides no context on error handling or return format, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already fully describing the schema_file parameter including the prerequisite. The tool description adds no additional meaning 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns all available source types with specific metadata fields. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like metadata_connectors which might be similar.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Crucially, it omits the required prerequisite that the user must first read a schema file and provide the path, which is essential for correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It warns of a write operation and requires confirmation, but omits details like irreversibility, permission requirements, side effects on related resources, or what response to expect. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full impact of calling this tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence serves as a critical behavioral warning, and the second clearly states the purpose. No unnecessary words or redundant information. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain the return format, error handling, idempotency, or post-cancellation state. The agent would need additional documentation to use this tool safely and correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline meaning for all parameters. The description adds value primarily through the schema_file parameter's instruction to read a specific schema file and the general warning. However, the transformation_id parameter lacks additional elaboration beyond its schema description. Overall, the description complements the schema without significantly surpassing it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action clearly: 'Cancels the execution of the transformation'. It includes a verb ('cancel') and a specific resource ('transformation execution'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_transformation' or 'run_transformation', leaving the agent to infer the distinction. The warning label adds context but not a direct sibling comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a user confirmation directive ('Confirm with user before calling') but provides no guidance on when to cancel vs. delete or other alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, conditions for valid cancellation, or scenarios where cancellation is inappropriate. This leaves the agent without enough context to make informed decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose the important prerequisite of first reading a schema file (as required by the 'schema_file' parameter). With no annotations, the description should cover such behavioral traits, but it fails to mention this key step.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it omits critical context, which balances conciseness with completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema. It fails to explain the necessity of reading a schema file beforehand or describe the return format, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The tool 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Returns a connection configuration and status details' and indicates it requires a valid identifier. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'connection_state' or 'list_connections'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., connection_state for state only, list_connections for listing). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the success case ('Returns a group object') without mentioning error handling (e.g., invalid identifier), authentication requirements, or any side effects. A more complete description would address these gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core function. It is front-loaded with the action and result. However, it could include more detail without becoming verbose, such as clarifying the schema_file requirement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple retrieval task, the description is incomplete. It lacks details about the schema_file parameter's necessity, return format (since no output schema), and error conditions. For a tool with a required unconventional parameter like schema_file, additional context is warranted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema: the group_id parameter is described as 'The unique identifier for the group' and the schema_file parameter instructs the user to read a specific schema file. The tool description does not elaborate further on parameter usage or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Returns a group object if a valid identifier was provided,' which clearly indicates a retrieval operation for a specific group. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_group, delete_group, or list_all_groups. However, it does not explicitly mention that the identifier is the group_id parameter, which is already defined in the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_all_groups or group_service_account. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for use, or exclusionary conditions. The tool's purpose is implied but not explicitly contextualized among its siblings.
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 mentions pagination but does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, safe, or idempotent, nor does it address authentication requirements or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a prominent pagination warning, which is efficient and front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 5 parameters, the description lacks completeness. It does not describe the return format, typical use cases, prerequisites (like knowing group_id), or how to handle pagination.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters like 'cursor' or 'limit' work together for pagination.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns a list of users within a group, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_all_connections_in_group or add_user_to_group, which also operate on groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_user_to_group or delete_user_from_group. The description lacks context for decision-making.
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 labels it as a 'WRITE OPERATION' and says it triggers tests, but does not explain what the tests involve, potential side effects, or what happens to the project. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the critical warning ('WRITE OPERATION - Confirm with user'). It is concise and avoids redundancy, though it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., breaking into purpose and usage).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide richer context about return values, test outcomes, and behavioral implications. It only covers basic purpose and a warning, leaving significant gaps for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The warning is not parameter-specific, so no extra value for parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool triggers tests for an existing transformation project, which is a specific verb-resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_transformation' or other test-related tools, so it misses full uniqueness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage guidance is a warning to confirm with the user before calling. It does not specify when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., 'run_transformation'), nor does it mention 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?
The description only states it returns details, implying a read operation, but fails to disclose the required prerequisite of reading a schema file and confirming the path via the schema_file parameter. No other behavioral traits are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it omits important details, making it too brief rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and the unusual schema_file requirement, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the workflow, output format, or error behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the input schema already explains both parameters adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'returns' and resource 'transformation details', making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'transformation_project_details' or 'transformation_package_metadata_details', which also return details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., reading the schema file first) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the return condition (valid identifier) and implies a read operation, but fails to disclose idempotency, side effects, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence. It is concise but could include more context without becoming overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and the need to differentiate from siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what metadata details are returned or handle invalid identifiers.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by repeating the schema_file requirement and reinforcing the 'valid identifier' concept, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns metadata details of a Quickstart transformation package, specifying the condition of a valid identifier. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'transformation_package_metadata_list' or 'transformation_details'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only states retrieval without mentioning side effects (none), return format, error handling, or the unusual schema_file parameter. There is no info on auth or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, concise. However, it does not front-load critical details like the schema_file requirement or what is returned.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of the schema_file parameter, response structure, and error scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond the schema. The unusual schema_file parameter is not explained in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves details of a webhook by identifier ('retrieve details of the existing webhook for a given identifier'). It distinguishes from list_all_webhooks by specifying a single identifier, but does not explicitly contrast with other webhook sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like modify_webhook or test_webhook. The usage context is implied from the purpose but lacks when-not or prerequisite information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description labels the tool as DESTRUCTIVE and states it deletes a group, but omits important behavioral details such as permissions required, impact on associated resources, reversibility, or response behavior. Since annotations are absent, the description carries full burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with one sentence plus a warning, front-loaded effectively. Every word is purposeful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with a confirmation mechanism, the description covers the basic action and destructiveness but lacks details on side effects, return values, or the confirmation process beyond what the schema provides. It is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema's descriptions, which already clarify the group_id and the confirmation requirement for schema_file.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it deletes a group from a Fivetran account, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling delete tools like delete_connection or delete_destination 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a warning to confirm with the user before calling, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_user_from_group) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns information but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is too minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence with no wasted words. All information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description is minimal but misses the prerequisite of reading a schema file, which is only captured in the parameter description. For completeness, the tool description should hint at this requirement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a detailed parameter description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns account information from the API key. However, it omits the critical prerequisite of first reading a schema file, which is only mentioned in the parameter description. The purpose is clear but incomplete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools, the lack of usage context forces the agent to infer based on the 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does mention pagination but omits auth requirements, rate limits, and the meaning of 'usage'. The required schema_file parameter's unusual prerequisite is not highlighted in the tool description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a pagination warning, highly efficient. It is front-loaded and contains only relevant information, though it could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the lack of output schema, the description does not explain the return format or fields. For a paginated list tool with usage info, more context on the response is needed for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the tool description does not need to add parameter meaning. It does not enhance understanding beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a list of Hybrid Deployment Agents, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_hybrid_deployment_agent' (singular) but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions pagination and optional group filtering, providing some context for when to use. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_hybrid_deployment_agent for a single agent).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description does not disclose read-only nature, error behavior for invalid IDs, or authentication requirements. Merely states it returns an object.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no extraneous information. Efficiently states the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description should elaborate on return value structure or error conditions. The unusual schema_file parameter's purpose is not explained. Adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter schema has 100% coverage with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it returns a group-level logging service object, implying a single resource retrieval. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_log_services, which lists all services.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_log_services or how to handle invalid identifiers. No prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it's a write operation requiring confirmation, but omits details like required permissions, side effects, idempotency, or return value, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, using one sentence plus a warning emoji. It is front-loaded with the critical alert. No extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and the tool being a write operation, the description is insufficient. It lacks information on post-update behavior, error conditions, permissions, or usage examples.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the already-detailed schema descriptions for project_id, schema_file, and request_body.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it updates a transformation project, clearly identifying the action and resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_transformation_project, the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description warns to confirm with the user before calling, indicating it's a mutating operation. However, it doesn't provide information on when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only discloses pagination behavior. Does not mention read-only nature, auth requirements, or other traits. Lacks depth for a mutation-free list tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single sentence with a warning emoji, highly concise. No wasted words, and the pagination warning is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description should hint at return content. It says 'metadata details' but is vague. For a list tool with well-documented input schema, completeness is adequate but could specify what fields are returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions exist. Tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what schema provides. Reference to pagination is brief; otherwise relies on schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Returns a list of available Quickstart transformation package metadata details.' The verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling 'transformation_package_metadata_details' which likely gets specific package details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools, explicit usage context is missing. The mention of pagination is helpful but doesn't address when to choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description marks it as a write operation, which hints at state change, but with no annotations provided, it lacks details on authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects. More behavioral context is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence and a warning emoji. It is front-loaded with critical information, wasting no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is insufficient for a write operation with no annotations and no output schema. It does not explain the return value, success behavior, or prerequisites, leaving gaps in contextual completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are detailed. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it 'creates a new transformation', which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'update_transformation' and 'delete_transformation', though it does not differentiate from 'create_transformation_project' which may be related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a warning to confirm with the user before calling, which provides usage guidance. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses it's a write operation, triggers historical sync, and does not override standard sync frequency. However, it lacks details on whether it overwrites existing data, error conditions, or if it can be safely interrupted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with three short sentences. It front-loads the warning and uses a symbol. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a write operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return value, error handling, or provide sufficient context about what 'historical sync' entails. It feels incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all three parameters adequately. The description does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema, only reiterating that the schema_file path must be read first. This meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool triggers a historical sync for multiple schema tables within a connection. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'resync_connection' by specifying it operates on tables, but it could be more precise about what 'multiple schema tables' means.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description warns to confirm with the user and notes it's a write operation, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'resync_connection' or 'reload_connection_schema_config'. No comparison with siblings or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It labels itself a 'WRITE OPERATION' but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, authorization requirements, or what happens after generation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with no unnecessary words. It uses a warning emoji for clarity and front-loads the operation type and caution.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic generation purpose and a caution. However, it omits the output format, error conditions, and any post-generation effects, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for schema_file (must read first) and request_body (refer to schema), but these are similar to the schema descriptions and do not substantially deepen understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Generates the Connect Card URI for the connection,' which uses a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_connection or connection_details, though it could briefly explain the URI'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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a warning to confirm with the user, implying careful usage, but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives or when it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the tool returns a destination object, with no information about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error handling. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the full impact of invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two clear, front-loaded sentences with no extraneous information. The second sentence is somewhat lengthy but well-structured. It is concise and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema, the description should explain what fields the returned destination object contains or provide examples. It also omits error scenarios. For a simple lookup tool, this lacks sufficient completeness for an AI agent to confidently use it without additional references.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for the 'destination_id' parameter (how to find it) but does not add meaning for 'schema_file' beyond what the schema already states. Overall, it meets the baseline but provides no extra semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a destination object given a valid identifier. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from similar tools like 'list_destinations' or 'connection_details', which could cause confusion for an agent selecting among many sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides specific guidance on when to use the tool (when a valid identifier is known) and includes an explicit method for obtaining that identifier via the List All Groups endpoint. It lacks explicit exclusion criteria (e.g., when not to use) but is generally clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly warns 'RESULTS ARE PAGINATED', adding important behavioral context beyond what annotations (none provided) convey. However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. For a tool with no annotations, the description partially fulfills the transparency need.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence plus a warning prefix. It is very concise with no unnecessary words. The key information (purpose and pagination) is front-loaded, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks details on how to use pagination (cursor/limit), what fields are in the returned list, and any error conditions. With no output schema, the description should provide at least a high-level description of the return structure. The pagination warning is a start but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the 'schema_file' parameter with a specific requirement to read a schema file first. Other parameters like 'group_id' and 'cursor' are not elaborated beyond the schema, but the added context for 'schema_file' justifies a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Returns a list of information about all connections within a group', which is a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_connections' and 'connection_details' by specifying 'within a group'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_connections' or 'group_details'. It only includes a pagination warning, which is a usage note but not a guideline for tool 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?
Warns about pagination with ⚠️, which is helpful. However, no annotations exist, and the description does not mention that the tool is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior when no webhooks exist. Partial disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with warning and purpose. Efficient, though the second sentence is slightly generic. No filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain return format, whether it lists full details or just metadata, and does not set expectations for the response. Adequate but not fully complete for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters, not even explaining the required schema_file parameter or how cursor/limit interact for pagination. No added value over schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves a list of existing webhooks for the current account, with a specific verb 'retrieve' and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like webhook_details which gets a single webhook.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as webhook_details, create_account_webhook, or other list tools. Does not specify context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it returns details but does not describe error behavior (e.g., what happens if identifier is invalid), authentication requirements, or side effects. For a simple read tool, the description is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more informative without harming conciseness, e.g., mentioning the output is a JSON object.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return format. It does not. It also lacks error handling info. For a simple get-details tool, it is incomplete; the agent might not know what to expect or how to handle invalid input.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds a condition ('if a valid identifier was provided') but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. The schema_file parameter's description in the schema is quite detailed, so the tool description adds little. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns transformation project details when a valid identifier is provided. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_all_transformation_projects (which returns multiple projects) and modify_transformation_project (which modifies). The verb 'returns' and resource 'transformation project details' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool requires a valid identifier but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_all_transformation_projects. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how to obtain a valid identifier. Guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The warning 'DESTRUCTIVE' indicates a dangerous action, but it does not detail side effects (e.g., whether the removal affects the user's other group memberships, if it is reversible, or what happens to associated data). More behavioral context is needed for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence plus a warning. The most critical information (destructiveness) is front-loaded. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is destructive and lacks an output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, prerequisites (e.g., user must exist in group), or post-condition state. A more complete description would improve safety and the agent's understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Removes an existing user from a group' with a specific resource (user and group) and verb. It also includes a destructiveness warning, which differentiates it from the sibling 'add_user_to_group'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises 'Confirm with user before calling', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch removal or other group management tools. No comparisons or conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description includes a pagination warning ('RESULTS ARE PAGINATED'), which is a useful behavioral disclosure. However, with no annotations, it fails to state that the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any rate limits. The description carries the full burden for transparency, but only partially addresses it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences with zero fluff. The pagination warning is prominently placed with an emoji, drawing immediate attention to an important constraint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is missing critical context: return values (e.g., structure of a transformation project), error handling, and ordering. The pagination warning is helpful, but overall the description is incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does 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 value by warning about pagination, which relates to 'limit' and 'cursor', but does not elaborate on 'schema_file' beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Returns a list') and specific resource ('transformation projects available via API within your Fivetran account'), making the purpose unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools focused on creation, deletion, or modification of transformation projects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., searching or filtering projects). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
In the absence of annotations, the description correctly flags the operation as a write with a confirmation requirement. It does not disclose other behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on existing agents), rate limits, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a prominent warning, effectively front-loading the most critical information (write operation, confirmation needed). It is concise but slightly repetitive with the emoji and caps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 required params, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is too brief. It does not explain what a Hybrid Deployment Agent is, the required group context, or what the response indicates (success/failure).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning for parameters beyond what the input schema already provides; the schema itself includes detailed instructions for 'schema_file'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the verb ('Creates') and resource ('a new Hybrid Deployment Agent in a group'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'delete_hybrid_deployment_agent' and 'get_hybrid_deployment_agent'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a warning that it is a write operation requiring user confirmation, which provides a safety guideline. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternative creation tools (e.g., 'create_connection', 'create_group') or provide any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description notes it is a write operation and requires user confirmation, but with no annotations provided, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. This is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: the warning and the action. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema, but the description does not mention return values or error conditions. For a write operation, this is a gap, though the schema and warning cover basic needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It does instruct to read a schema file first, which is a behavioral hint but not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates a new transformation project, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_transformation' or 'modify_transformation_project', though the name itself is specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a warning to confirm with the user before calling, which provides basic usage guidance. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only operation ('Returns'), but lacks details such as behavior when the group has no SSH key pair or error handling. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no extraneous information. It is well-structured and immediate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool, the description is adequate but lacks context about the schema_file requirement and potential failure cases. It provides the essential function but could benefit from more completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers both parameters fully (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's descriptions, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns the public key from the SSH key pair associated with the group, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like group_details or group_service_account by specifying the SSH public key.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like group_details or list_all_connections_in_group. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It discloses pagination with a warning emoji and mentions automatic metadata updates, which is helpful. However, lacks details on rate limits or authentication.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single paragraph that contains useful information but is slightly wordy. It could be more concise, but the structure is acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, but the description roughly indicates what is returned. For a list endpoint, this is adequate, but it does not fully describe the response structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns all available source types with metadata. It's slightly lacking in differentiating from sibling tools like metadata_connector_config, but the purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description warns about pagination and indicates use for displaying connectors, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Usage context is implied only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It warns about the write operation and need for user confirmation, which adds some transparency. However, it does not disclose what regenerating authentication entails (e.g., token invalidation, downtime, permissions required), leaving significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a warning emoji, very concise and front-loaded with the critical 'WRITE OPERATION' warning. It could be slightly improved by mentioning the schema_file requirement, but it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, side effects (e.g., whether old tokens are invalidated), prerequisites, or when to use this over reset_hybrid_deployment_agent_credentials. More context is needed for an agent to confidently invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. The schema_file parameter description gives important workflow guidance (read then provide path), which is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Regenerate authentication for a Hybrid Deployment Agent' with a clear verb (regenerate) and resource (authentication for a specific agent). The warning emoji and 'WRITE OPERATION' add clarity. It distinguishes from siblings like create_hybrid_deployment_agent (create) and reset_hybrid_deployment_agent_credentials (reset) by focusing on re-authentication.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a warning to confirm with user, implying it's a sensitive write operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like reset_hybrid_deployment_agent_credentials, nor does it provide prerequisites or context about when re-authentication is needed. Guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation (returns), but does not specify permissions, output format, or side effects. Adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. Description covers purpose but would benefit from mentioning the return value type. Still largely complete for a straightforward retrieval.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool returns the Fivetran service account associated with a group, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like group_details and group_ssh_public_key.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only labels the operation as a write operation but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, authorization needs, or any other behavioral traits beyond the warning.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a single sentence plus a warning emoji. No superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite many sibling tools and no output schema, the description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., destination must exist), response format, or side effects. It feels incomplete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions in the schema are already detailed (e.g., schema_file explains the need to read a file). The tool description adds no extra parameter information, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an existing destination, with specific verb 'Updates information for an existing destination'. It distinguishes from siblings like create_destination or delete_destination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Includes a prominent warning 'WRITE OPERATION - Confirm with user before calling', which provides explicit usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description only states it's a write operation but provides no details on side effects, permissions, or idempotency. Minimal 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with a single sentence plus essential warning. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks details on return values, error conditions, and success/failure behavior. As a mutation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions. Description adds no extra semantic value beyond the warning context. Baseline score appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it updates an existing group within Fivetran account, distinguishing it from create_group and delete_group siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Includes a prominent warning that it's a write operation requiring user confirmation. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states it's a write operation; lacks details on side effects, duration, success/failure conditions, or whether it modifies the destination state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise single sentence with a prominent warning prefix. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and no annotations; description does not explain what happens after running tests (e.g., results, asynchronous behavior). Leaves agent uncertain about return value or next steps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 3 parameters. Description adds limited value beyond schema (e.g., instructs to read schema file for request_body structure). Baseline 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Runs', resource 'setup tests', and scope 'for an existing destination within your Fivetran account'. Differentiates from sibling tools like 'run_setup_tests' (likely for connections) and 'run_setup_tests_log_service'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly warns 'WRITE OPERATION - Confirm with user before calling', providing a critical usage guideline. However, no direct comparison to alternative sibling tools for when to use this vs others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the operation is a write and requires user confirmation, which is helpful. However, it does not describe the exact behavioral consequences (e.g., what changes occur, side effects, or whether the tests modify state). The link to external documentation partially compensates, but the description itself lacks detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences. The first sentence contains the essential warning and the second states the purpose. No extraneous information. It is well-structured and front-loaded with critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage warning. However, it lacks details on what the return value looks like (e.g., success/failure indicators) and does not fully explain the behavior of the setup tests. The external link helps but the description alone is not entirely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the input schema already describes all three parameters, the description adds significant value for the 'schema_file' parameter by noting it requires reading a specific file and confirming the path. It also clarifies that 'log_id' refers to an existing group-level logging service. This goes beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool 'runs the setup tests for an existing group-level logging service'. It includes a verb ('runs') and a specific resource ('logging service'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'run_setup_tests' and 'run_destination_setup_tests'. However, it does not elaborate on what exactly the setup tests entail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns that it is a 'WRITE OPERATION' and instructs to 'Confirm with user before calling', providing a clear usage guideline. However, it does not compare or contrast with similar tools such as 'run_setup_tests' or 'run_destination_setup_tests', leaving the agent without guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It only notes pagination, but does not mention that the operation is read-only, safe, or what happens with no results. More behavioral context would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with a critical pagination warning, and each sentence is essential. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters (one required schema_file that requires a prerequisite read), no output schema, and pagination, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the prerequisite for schema_file, the pagination cursor usage, or the response structure. This leaves the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns a list of all transformations, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like transformation_details (single transformation) or list_all_transformation_projects (projects).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (to list transformations) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or how it compares to alternatives like transformation_details for single items. The pagination warning offers mild context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a write operation and requires a valid identifier, but lacks details on side effects, error behavior, or idempotency. The warning enhances transparency but leaves gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with a warning symbol, front-loading the critical safety information. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or extraneous detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., existence of the transformation). The warning and valid-ID condition are necessary but insufficient for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only reinforcing the need for a valid identifier. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Updates the transformation') and explicitly labels it as a write operation, distinguishing it from read-only or creation siblings like 'create_transformation' and 'delete_transformation'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a warning to confirm with the user before calling, which is helpful for safety, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create, delete) or note prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It correctly notes it's a write operation requiring user confirmation, but does not disclose other behaviors like idempotency, error handling, or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two efficient sentences, front-loaded with the critical warning. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 3 required parameters, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, prerequisites (e.g., user must exist), or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds limited value beyond the schema. It references the schema_file to confirm reading, but does not elaborate on parameter values or constraints beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool adds an existing user to a group in a Fivetran account. It uses specific verb and resource, and the sibling list includes delete and list operations, providing differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Includes a warning to confirm with the user before calling, which provides explicit usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternatives beyond the warning.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It notes the write operation and need for user confirmation, and requires reading a schema file. But it does not disclose response behavior, error handling, or side effects beyond creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with only two sentences plus a prominent warning. Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, so the description should explain return values or outcomes, but it does not. It also lacks information on error conditions, prerequisites beyond schema reading, and how to interpret the result, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mandating reading the schema file first and referencing the expected structure for the request body, which goes beyond the schema's own descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action (create a new webhook) and the resource (current account). It distinguishes from siblings like create_group_webhook by specifying 'for the current account'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a warning to confirm with the user before calling, providing usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_group_webhook or specify when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer.
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 bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool is destructive, but lacks details on what exactly is deleted (e.g., associated data, irreversibility), authentication requirements, or response behavior. The warning is good but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with the destructive warning front-loaded. Every part serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a usage warning. However, it lacks information about post-deletion behavior, synchronous vs asynchronous operation, or error cases, which would be helpful given no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds a requirement for the schema_file parameter (must confirm by reading a file), providing some additional behavioral context. However, it does not meaningfully enhance understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Deletes') and the resource ('a destination from your Fivetran account'), using a specific verb and resource. It also includes a warning about destructiveness, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like create_destination or modify_destination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs to 'Confirm with user before calling' due to destructiveness, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly state alternatives, but the warning strongly implies this tool should only be used when deletion is intended and confirmed.
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 bears the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation requiring confirmation, and mentions response behavior (contains all known schemas and tables). However, it does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or rate limits, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise, front-loading the critical warning. It adds a few sentences of context without being verbose, though the example details could be more streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should provide sufficient context. It mentions response contents but lacks prerequisites, error conditions, or return value details. For a write operation with 6 required parameters, more completeness would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond the schema definitions; it only references the schema file and specific behavior for certain connectors, which does not enhance parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Updates the column config within your table for an existing connection within your Fivetran account.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like modify_connection_table_config or modify_connection_schema_config.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes an explicit warning: 'WRITE OPERATION - Confirm with user before calling,' which guides appropriate usage. It also provides specific context for NetSuite and Salesforce connectors, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the write nature and backward-compatibility behavior but omits side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Provides some response content but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is somewhat verbose with repeated backward-compatibility note and includes redundant sentences. Could be more streamlined while retaining key warnings.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, workflow hints, and response contents. Links to external tutorial enhance completeness. Slightly incomplete on behavioral details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining the schema_file prerequisite and request_body format, clarifying the workflow beyond the schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Updates the schema config for an existing connection' with a specific verb and resource. The 'WRITE OPERATION' warning and context about backward compatibility differentiate it from sibling tools like modify_connection or modify_connection_table_config.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Includes a user confirmation warning but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or specify when not to use this tool. Lacks guidance on choosing between modify_connection_schema_config and other modify_* 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. It discloses that the tool is a 'WRITE OPERATION' requiring confirmation and notes a prerequisite (reading a schema file via the schema_file parameter). However, it doesn't detail side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The transparency is adequate but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, each earning its place. The warning is front-loaded for immediate visibility. No extraneous words or redundant explanations. Perfectly sized for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps. It doesn't specify the return value (e.g., job ID, status), whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, or failure modes. Given the complexity of running a transformation (potentially long-running), the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does 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 three parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'if a valid identifier is provided' echoes the schema). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Runs' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the transformation'. Combined with the warning about being a write operation, it unambiguously states the tool's action. Among siblings like 'cancel_transformation', 'test_transformation_project', and 'update_transformation', this tool's purpose of executing a transformation 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The warning explicitly says 'Confirm with user before calling,' which is a strong usage guideline about when to call. While it doesn't list explicit alternatives or when not to use, the sibling context (e.g., 'test_transformation_project') implies when testing is appropriate. This provides clear context for safe invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It identifies the tool as a WRITE OPERATION requiring user confirmation. However, it does not describe permissions, idempotency, side effects, return value, or error handling. This is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear warning and a single sentence stating the purpose. It includes a helpful link to documentation. Every piece of information earns its place, though the warning could be formatted more prominently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally complete for a write operation. It highlights the necessity of reading the schema file, which provides detailed structure, but the description itself lacks information about return values, error conditions, and exact behavior beyond the update action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add new semantic information beyond the schema; it merely reiterates the requirement to read the schema file. With full schema coverage, baseline is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Updates information for an existing group-level logging service', specifying the verb 'updates' and the resource 'logging service'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_log_service (create) and delete_log_service (delete).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a prominent warning 'WRITE OPERATION - Confirm with user before calling', providing a key usage guideline. It also implies when to use (updating existing) vs alternatives (add, delete) but does not explicitly state exclusions or comparative scenarios. The prerequisite to read the schema file is also a guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior via the warning and implies access control by saying 'accessible connections'. This adds key behavioral context beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a warning emoji, front-loading the key behavior. Every part earns its place with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and pagination but lacks details about the output structure or additional behaviors. It is minimally adequate for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it only mentions pagination generally.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a list of all accessible connections within the Fivetran account, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_all_connections_in_group' which filters by group, making the scope clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a pagination warning, indicating how to use the tool, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'list_all_connections_in_group'. No when-not or comparison is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it is a write operation with a warning, mentions the response contains all known schemas/tables and user-set columns, and notes special behavior for NetSuite and Salesforce connectors. With no annotations provided, it covers key behavioral aspects, though it could include more on side effects or authorization.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description starts with a clear warning and explains the operation, but includes multiple clauses and references to tutorials. It is well front-loaded but could be more concise, as it mixes usage notes, response details, and connector specifics in one paragraph.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a write operation with no output schema, the description explains the response content, connector-specific behaviors, and references documentation. It covers important contextual details, though it omits prerequisites like connection existence and error scenarios. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description adds limited parameter-specific meaning. The overall context of updating a single schema relates to the schema_name parameter, but the description does not elaborate beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool is a write operation that updates the database schema config for an existing connection, specifically for a single schema in a multi-schema connection. It uses a specific verb 'updates' and resource 'database schema config', and distinguishes from siblings like modify_connection_schema_config by focusing on a single schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context that this is for updating a schema within a connection with multiple schemas, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative tools like modify_connection_schema_config. It includes a warning to confirm with the user, but lacks clear when/not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly marks itself as a WRITE OPERATION and includes a confirmation warning, adding valuable behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the warning, using minimal text to convey key points. Efficient, though could benefit from slightly more structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and fully described parameters, the description is mostly complete, but lacks details on post-update behavior or effects; still sufficient for a straightforward update tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond referencing the schema file and identifier. Baseline score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'update the existing webhook', using specific verb and resource, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_webhook and delete_webhook.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises 'Confirm with user before calling', providing a safety guideline, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a write operation and uses a dummy connection, but does not detail side effects (e.g., whether the webhook is actually triggered, if there are irreversible changes, or the response structure). The warning addresses confirmation but lacks comprehensive 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise with two sentences and a warning label. The critical warning is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose and basic behavior but lacks completeness for a test tool. It does not explain the expected output/response (since no output schema), potential error conditions, or what happens after test execution. Given the simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no nesting), the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds value beyond schema by specifying that schema_file must first be read from a specific path and providing a dummy connection example. This gives practical guidance on usage, exceeding the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to test an existing webhook by sending a webhook with a given identifier. The warning label 'WRITE OPERATION' and the specific dummy connection identifier provide unambiguous action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling webhook tools (create, delete, modify, details) by explicitly describing a test operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a warning to confirm with the user before calling and implies testing of existing webhooks. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., webhook_details for verification, create_webhook for new webhooks). The usage context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It labels the tool as a 'WRITE OPERATION' and includes a warning emoji, indicating mutation. However, it does not disclose potential destructive consequences, required permissions, or whether the upgrade is reversible, which would be beneficial for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence plus a warning. It is front-loaded with the critical warning and uses a clear emoji. There is no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks details about the tool's return value, error conditions, or what happens after a successful upgrade. Given that it is a write operation with no output schema, additional context would help the agent understand the outcome. However, the required schema file reading provides some completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. The schema_file parameter description is detailed but is part of the schema, not the tool description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'upgrades' and the resource 'Quickstart transformation package', distinguishing it from related siblings like update_transformation or create_transformation. It specifies that it upgrades to the latest version given a valid identifier.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a clear usage guideline: 'Confirm with user before calling.' It also notes that it works only if a valid identifier is provided. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among the many transformation-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description reveals important behavioral traits: it queries the source in real-time, includes a warning about parent table/schema enablement affecting data replication, and specifies the response contents. No contradictions exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a critical warning in all caps, then states the core functionality and a condition. It is relatively concise with no redundant information, though slightly longer than necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values (enabled and hashed flags, patchable fields) and preconditions. It provides sufficient context for a read operation with 4 simple parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline. The description adds value by explaining the schema_file parameter's mandatory nature and requiring prior reading of a specific file, which goes beyond the schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states that it returns the real-time column list for one source table, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like modify_connection_column_config and delete_column_connection_config by its read-only nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear use case: 'Check before telling the user the column is enabled.' It also notes the precondition that the connection must be in a 'Connected' state, offering practical guidance for when to invoke this tool.
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 only states the basic operation without mentioning side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error behavior (e.g., what happens for unsupported connector types). The description lacks transparency about potential failure or safety characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, consisting of two clear sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds essential constraints and alternatives without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity, no output schema, and high schema coverage, the description is adequately complete. It conveys purpose, usage context, and relevant constraints. A slight gap is the lack of return value description, but it's acceptable for a simple read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high coverage with no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Returns the connection state.' It specifies the supported connector types (Function and Connection SDK), differentiating it from sibling 'modify_connection_state' which updates state. The verb 'returns' and resource 'connection state' are precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Returns the connection state') and that it is only supported for Function and Connection SDK connectors. It also provides an alternative for updating state via a link to 'Update Connection State'. This gives clear when-not/alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Warns it's a write operation and instructs to read schema. Missing details on return value, idempotency, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is short and front-loaded with warning. Each part earns its place; no fluff. Could be slightly more structured but effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, yet description does not mention return values or post-creation behavior. Lacks info on success/failure scenarios, but covers critical safety and schema instructions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage 100%, but description adds value by instructing to read the schema file and provide its path for schema_file. For request_body, it directs to schema. Adds context beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it creates a new webhook for a group, distinguishing from sibling tools like delete_webhook, modify_webhook, list_all_webhooks. Specific verb and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit warning to confirm with user before calling, which is strong guidance. Does not provide alternative tools or when not to use, but the warning covers a key aspect.
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 warns 'DESTRUCTIVE' but does not explain what is destroyed (e.g., agent, configurations), whether the action is reversible, or required permissions. The warning adds some transparency but is insufficient for full burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two short sentences, front-loading the warning with an emoji. Every part is essential and no words are wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description covers the critical need for user confirmation and a safety mechanism. It could mention permanence or error cases, but the warning and confirmation instruction are sufficient for a single-action delete tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds extra meaning for the schema_file parameter by requiring the user to first read a specific schema file and provide its path as confirmation. This goes beyond the schema's type/description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a Hybrid Deployment Agent' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_hybrid_deployment_agent and get_hybrid_deployment_agent by focusing on deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a prominent warning '⚠️ DESTRUCTIVE - Confirm with user before calling,' which provides clear guidance on when to use (only after user confirmation) and implies it should not be used without caution. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly labels the operation as destructive, which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other aspects such as permissions required, reversibility, or side effects on dependent data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence plus a prominent warning emoji. It is front-loaded with the critical caution and leaves no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple deletion tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, that it's destructive, and the parameters are fully documented. It could mention the success state or error handling, but the warning and the schema_file confirmation compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds only a generic 'with a given identifier' for webhook_id, which is already documented. The schema_file parameter is more detailed in the schema itself. Thus minimal added value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'delete an existing webhook', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like modify_webhook and test_webhook, and the warning emphasizes its destructive nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly warns 'Confirm with user before calling' and includes a required schema_file parameter that enforces a confirmation step. Lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the destructive directive suffices for safety.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It warns about pagination, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it omits details like read-only nature, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The warning is helpful but not comprehensive for a mutation-free tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one short sentence with a clear warning prefix. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is straightforward (list operation), and the description, combined with the fully documented schema, covers the core purpose and pagination behavior. It lacks an explanation of the return format (since no output schema) but is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it mentions pagination generally but does not explain limit/cursor syntax or behavior. The schema_file parameter is described in the schema with a required path confirmation, but no elaboration in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a list of all accessible logging services, using a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('logging services'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_log_service, get_log_service_details, delete_log_service, and update_log_service by focusing on listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description alerts users that results are paginated, a key usage hint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_log_service_details for a single service. The context is mostly implied through the tool name and sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Flags as write operation with warning. Describes required pre-condition (pause connection). Specifies supported connector types. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it adequately discloses behavioral constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is somewhat verbose, repeating phrases like 'To update the connection state.' Includes inline links and steps that could be streamlined. Front-loaded with warning, but overall could be more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers process steps and connector limitations. Lacks information about return values or error responses since no output schema. Given complexity and sibling tools, description is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by instructing to read schema file for 'schema_file' parameter and explaining 'request_body' references schema. This goes beyond repeat of schema fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Updates the connection state.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'connection_state' (likely a getter) and 'modify_connection' (different operation). Also specifies it's only for Function and Connection SDK connectors, adding specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit steps: pause connection, update state, unpause. Includes a warning to confirm with user before calling. Does not explicitly exclude scenarios or offer alternatives, but gives clear context for typical usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly labels the operation as 'WRITE OPERATION' with a warning symbol, indicating mutability. This gives adequate transparency for a credential reset tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with front-loaded warning. Every word earns its place; no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has 3 required params and no output schema. Description explains operation and user confirmation, but does not elaborate on the request_body structure or how schema_file is used, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Reset credentials for a Hybrid Deployment Agent', using a specific verb ('Reset') and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_hybrid_deployment_agent' or 'delete_hybrid_deployment_agent'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs 'Confirm with user before calling', providing a clear condition for use. However, it does not contrast with the sibling 're_auth_hybrid_deployment_agent' to specify when to use one versus the other.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states it's a WRITE operation, runs setup tests, and returns testing results. It also warns about future required fields and fingerprint details limitations. This provides substantial behavioral context beyond what annotations would offer.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise, front-loading the critical warning about user confirmation. It uses bullet points for emphasis and includes necessary details without excessive verbosity. Slight redundancy could be trimmed, but still effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values more thoroughly. It only says 'returns testing results' without specifying format or fields. Also missing prerequisites (e.g., existing group) and error handling. For a complex creation tool, this is a gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that schema_file must be read from a specific path and that request_body is a JSON string. It also gives important notes about destination_schema_names and trust_fingerprints, which are not in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Creates a new connection') and the resource ('within a specified group in your Fivetran account'), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like modify_connection or delete_connection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a prominent warning to confirm with the user before calling, which is a key usage guideline. It also advises including the destination_schema_names field and setting trust_fingerprints appropriately. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools for when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description transparently labels the action as destructive and specifies the scope (group-level), adding useful behavioral context beyond what would be inferred from annotations (which are absent). More details about consequences or permissions could improve it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, front-loading the critical warning, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive delete tool, the description adequately covers purpose and usage advisory. It lacks detail on prerequisites or return values, but those are not expected given no output schema and the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It doesn't, which is acceptable, but it also does not enhance the meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Deletes' and the resource 'group-level logging service', distinguishing it from siblings like add_log_service or update_log_service.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The leading warning 'DESTRUCTIVE - Confirm with user before calling' provides clear usage context, though it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or alternatives.
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?
Displays destructive warning and valid identifier requirement. No annotations provided; lacks details on side effects, permissions, or failure behavior. Basic but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with warning front-loaded. No extraneous words, every part adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple delete tool with two parameters and no output schema. Could mention what happens if identifier is invalid or if there are dependencies, but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters documented in schema (100% coverage). schema_file description adds required confirmation step beyond type definition, providing extra guidance for proper usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Deletes transformation project' with a specific verb and resource. Distinct from sibling tools like create or modify.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly warns 'DESTRUCTIVE - Confirm with user before calling', giving clear usage context. Could mention alternatives like modify_transformation_project for non-destructive changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses pagination behavior and the required schema_file confirmation step. It could mention that this is a read-only operation (implied) or rate limits, but pagination is key. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with an emoji warning, front-loads key information (pagination). No unnecessary words. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, pagination, and the schema_file requirement. It is sufficient to understand the tool's function and constraints, though it does not describe return format or edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds a pagination warning but does not elaborate on parameter meaning beyond the schema. The schema_file parameter's description includes a required action, which is helpful but already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('list of all groups') and distinguishes from sibling tools like group_details (single group) and list_all_users_in_group (users). The pagination warning adds specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving all groups and includes a pagination warning. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., when needing a single group or filtered results). The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly identifies the operation as write/destructive and provides specific behavioral details for NetSuite/Salesforce connectors (single-entry schema map). No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with an important warning front-loaded. It is concise and every part is relevant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides key context: write operation, user confirmation, and connector-specific behavior. It lacks details about response or side effects, but the schema descriptions cover the parameters adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds value by explaining a special case (single-entry for certain connectors), but does not significantly augment parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it updates the table config for an existing connection in Fivetran, using a specific verb ('updates') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like modify_connection_schema_config by focusing on table-level config.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Includes a strong warning '⚠️ WRITE OPERATION - Confirm with user before calling', which sets clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses it's a write operation and group-level scope, but lacks details on authorization needs, idempotency, return values, or side effects. Given no annotations, the description partially carries the burden but is not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a prominent warning. Every word serves a purpose, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers creation, scope, and parameter instructions. However, it omits return value information (e.g., does it return the created service ID?) and does not mention authentication context, which is noticeable given the lack of output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds crucial semantic guidance beyond the schema: for schema_file, it instructs the agent to read a specific schema file first; for request_body, it references the schema for structure. This significantly aids correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (creates), the resource (group-level logging service), and scope (within a specified group). It distinguishes from siblings like update_log_service and delete_log_service by being the 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns it's a write operation requiring user confirmation ('Confirm with user before calling'), providing a clear usage guideline. However, it does not contrast with other create tools (e.g., create_connection) or provide alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses several important behaviors: it's a write operation, requires a pre-existing group, and includes a nuanced caveat about obtaining certificate details. However, it omits details on authentication, rate limits, or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with an important warning and uses clear formatting with '> IMPORTANT' sections. While somewhat verbose, each sentence serves a purpose (warning, prerequisite, certificate tip). It is well-structured for a complex creation tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema or annotations, the description covers the key contextual needs: prerequisites (create group first), the critical warning, and a specific use-case nuance. It could be more complete on error scenarios or return format, but it sufficiently informs correct tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters (schema_file, request_body) are described in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond instructing the agent to consult the schema file and confirming the path. This 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a new destination within a specified group in Fivetran, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like modify_destination or delete_destination by including mapping details and prerequisites.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly warns it's a write operation requiring user confirmation, explains the 1:1 group-destination mapping prerequisite, and provides a specific tip about the trust_certificates parameter with a link for further details. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly flags as a write operation, warns to confirm with user, and explains the critical mapping dependency. Could mention irreversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with warning and purpose. The mapping explanation is verbose but necessary. Could be slightly more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers operation, prerequisites, and mapping. Lacks output return details but no output schema exists. Adequate for a simple creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the reason for the schema_file parameter (to confirm) and the mapping logic.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates a new group in Fivetran, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling creation tools by explaining the group-to-destination mapping.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context that groups are prerequisite for destinations, but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses that this is a write operation (with warning), marks columns for deletion, and that the actual drop occurs during the next sync. It also hints at the need to read a schema file. This provides good transparency for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is fairly concise at one sentence plus a warning, and the most critical information (write operation, confirmation needed) is front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more streamlined without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality, warning, and consequence. It lacks details about error handling or validation, but for a deletion tool that marks for next sync, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context beyond the schema: it emphasizes that the schema_file parameter requires reading a specific file and providing the exact path, and that request_body is a JSON string. This adds meaningful guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool marks multiple blocked columns for deletion from destination tables, using a specific verb 'delete' and resource 'multiple columns connection config'. It is distinct from the sibling 'delete_column_connection_config' which handles single columns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it's a write operation requiring user confirmation, and columns are dropped during the next sync. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like the single-column deletion tool, leaving the choice of when to use which tool somewhat implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Includes strong destructive warning and confirmation requirement. Does not detail other behavioral aspects like side effects or error states, but sufficient for a deletion tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two-part structure (warning then action). Every sentence adds value. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, guidelines, and parameter semantics. However, lacks information on return value or success/failure indicators, especially given no output schema. Could be slightly more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds crucial context for schema_file parameter: it serves as a confirmation step requiring prior file read. transformation_id description matches schema. Adds value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states action ('Deletes a transformation') and condition ('if a valid identifier is provided'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_transformation, update_transformation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly warns about destructiveness and requires user confirmation. Does not directly compare to alternatives like cancel_transformation, but gives clear context for when to call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It includes a prominent pagination warning ('RESULTS ARE PAGINATED'), which is a behavioral trait not obvious from the schema alone. It does not mention other traits like idempotency or authorization, but for a list operation this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a warning emoji, extremely concise and front-loaded. Every element adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers the core purpose and pagination, it omits return format details and prerequisites. The tool is relatively simple, so this is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to understand the full context without additional inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description does not add new parameter-level details but the pagination warning indirectly adds context to cursor/limit. The required 'schema_file' parameter has a detailed schema description, so overall parameter semantics are well-covered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Returns a list of all accessible destinations within your Fivetran account,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'destination_details' (which returns a single destination) and 'create_destination'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for listing all accessible destinations. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context signals and sibling tools provide enough differentiation for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses write nature, triggers full historical sync, handles paused connections (schedules), and describes conflict handling (HTTP 409). It does not cover authentication or rate limits but covers 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a warning emoji and clear bullet-like points. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds useful information. Could be tightened slightly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 required params and no output schema, the description covers essential contexts: confirmation requirement, behavior when connection is paused or sync in progress, and error scenario. It lacks return value details but no output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description for schema_file adds important context (must read the schema file first), and request_body references the schema. This adds value beyond the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly defines the tool as a WRITE OPERATION that triggers a full historical sync of a connection or specific tables. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sync_connection and resync_tables by specifying 'full historical sync' and handling paused/sync-in-progress states.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises confirming with the user before calling and explains behavior under paused or in-progress sync conditions. However, it lacks explicit comparison to alternatives (e.g., when to use resync_connection vs resync_tables or sync_connection), which would improve score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description fully bears the burden. Discloses destructive action, delayed deletion (next sync), and specific behavior for NetSuite and Salesforce connectors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences plus a warning emoji, front-loaded with critical warning. Every sentence is information-dense and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 5-param, no-output-schema tool, description covers destructive nature, effect on sync, and connector quirks. Lacks explicit return value info, but that is omitted due to no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond schema, only noting a connector-specific detail that does not directly enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'marks' and the resource 'blocked column for deletion', and explains the effect 'dropped during next sync'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_connection' as it is column-specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Includes explicit directive to confirm with user before calling due to destructiveness. Provides connector-specific context about the 'schemas' map field. Lacks explicit comparison with alternatives like 'delete_multiple_columns_connection_config'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses destructive behavior (deletes) despite no annotations. Could mention irreversibility or cascading effects, but adequate for a delete operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with warning, no wasted words. Structure is optimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers essential context for a delete tool given no output schema. Could mention existence prerequisite, but not critical due to schema_file confirmation step.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%; description adds procedural meaning for schema_file parameter (must read a file first) and confirms connection_id's role, adding value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool deletes a connection from the Fivetran account, distinguishing it from sibling delete tools like delete_destination or delete_group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Includes explicit warning that it's destructive and requires user confirmation, providing clear context on when to use. No explicit exclusion of alternatives, but the warning suffices.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description discloses it is a write operation, warns of long execution time dependent on schema size, and describes response content. Could mention if it destroys existing data but is sufficient for behavioral awareness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured: warning, purpose, note on time, response content. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, usage prerequisites, behavioral notes, and response details despite no output schema. Provides a tutorial link for further context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
High schema coverage (100%) gives baseline 3, but description adds value by explaining schema_file must be read first and request_body refers to that file, exceeding basic schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states 'Reloads the connection schema config' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like modify_connection_schema_config by highlighting it is a reload operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Includes a warning to confirm with user before calling and notes potential long execution time. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives but provides clear context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behaviors: omits unedited columns, does not apply to Magic Folder connectors, specific behavior for NetSuite/Salesforce connectors, and schema file confirmation requirement. It does not explicitly state idempotency or rate limits, but the read-only nature is implied. The warning about parent schema adds transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively long but well-structured. It front-loads a critical warning, then defines purpose, usage notes, alternative endpoints, and special cases. Every section adds distinct value, though some links and notes could be condensed. The structure is clear and effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers all necessary information: what is returned (global flags, schemas, tables, overridden columns), what is not returned (unedited columns), alternative endpoints for different needs, connector-specific behaviors, and explicit exclusions (Magic Folder). It also includes a prerequisite warning. The two parameters are fully explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds value beyond the schema by instructing users to first read a schema file and provide the exact path for the 'schema_file' parameter, which is not in the schema description. The 'connection_id' parameter is straightforward. Overall, the description enhances understanding of one parameter significantly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states this tool returns the top-level schema configuration for an existing connection. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like modify_connection_schema_config (write) and connection_column_config (exhaustive column list) by specifying its read-only nature and the scope of data (global flags, schemas, tables, overridden columns only).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (read current config, backup, copy) and when to use alternatives (modify endpoint for restore/copy, column config for exhaustive lists). It also warns about parent schema requirements and includes connector-specific notes, giving clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so description carries full burden. It discloses the write/destructive nature, required persistent parameters, and special test-control parameters. Lacks details on rate limits or auth, but adequately covers main 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with upfront warning, bullet points, and clear sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Length is appropriate for the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage constraints, parameter details, and alternative endpoints. It is thorough and leaves no major gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining the special role of schema_file (must read first) and clarifying that test parameters like trust_certificates do not persist. Provides context beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it 'updates connection parameters for an existing connection within your Fivetran account.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and differs from sibling tools like modify_connection_column_config.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly warns it is a WRITE OPERATION and to confirm with user. Provides when to use (updating persistent config) and when not (test parameters alone), including an alternative endpoint for running setup tests.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly labels the operation as a write (⚠️), requires user confirmation, explains its role for manual syncs and rescheduled state, and links to documentation for details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single paragraph with no wasted words. It front-loads the critical warning, then concisely states action, effects, and links to further info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, and parameter hints. It includes a link for full walkthrough, making it complete for agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% so schema describes each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the schema_file parameter as a confirmation path and directing to the schema file for request_body structure, enhancing clarity beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool triggers a data sync for an existing Fivetran connection, specifying it is a write operation and not waiting for scheduled sync. It distinguishes from standard sync frequency and explains behavior for manual schedule_type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns to confirm with user before calling, explains when to use (immediate sync, manual schedule), and clarifies it doesn't override dashboard frequency. It lacks direct mention of alternative sibling tools like resync_connection, but provides sufficient context for typical use.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/fivetran/fivetran-mcp'

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