ranger-mcp-server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes (CRUD for users, groups, roles, policies, services, tags). However, there is overlap between create_access_policy, create_ranger_policy, and apply_ranger_policy, which could confuse an agent selecting the right one for a given task.
Naming Consistency3/5
Majority follow verb_noun pattern (create_ranger_user, get_ranger_group, list_ranger_users), but there are deviations like add_users_groups_to_role, apply_ranger_policy, lookup_ranger_groups, and mixing list/search/lookup for similar operations reduces consistency.
Tool Count3/5
36 tools is high but covers multiple resource types (users, groups, roles, policies, services, tags). Some tools could be merged (e.g., list/search variants) to reduce count. Not extreme, but borderline heavy for typical agent interactions.
Completeness3/5
Covers CRUD for users, groups, roles, and access/masking policies. Missing create/update/delete for tag definitions and tag-based resources, and row-filter policy lifecycle (only searchable). Gaps will require workarounds.
Average 2.8/5 across 36 of 36 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 11 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 Apache 2.0.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, pagination, or potential side effects. It only says 'List,' which implies read-only but does not mention pagination, rate limits, or return format. Insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (three words) but at the cost of completeness. It is under-specified rather than concise, missing essential context. A single vague sentence does not suffice.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter coverage, the description is wholly incomplete. It fails to explain return behavior, pagination limits, or how to filter results, leaving the agent without critical context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter meaning. It does not mention page_size or start_index at all, providing no value beyond the schema. The agent cannot infer appropriate values from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List Ranger groups,' which is a specific verb and resource, giving a clear basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like lookup_ranger_groups or get_ranger_group, which could also list groups. A score of 3 is adequate but lacking distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lookup_ranger_groups or get_ranger_group. The agent has no criteria to choose between them, reducing usability.
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 any behavioral traits such as pagination, filtering, ordering, or output format. With no annotations, the description fails to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at one sentence, but it fails to add value beyond the tool name. While brevity is positive, the sentence does not earn its place as it provides no new 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?
Given two parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It does not address pagination or how this tool relates to similar tools, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or usage of the 'page_size' and 'start_index' parameters. The agent receives no help in understanding how to use these parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Ranger users' essentially restates the tool name 'list_ranger_users', making it a tautology. It does not add specific details about the scope or context of the listing.
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 siblings like 'get_ranger_user', 'lookup_ranger_users', or 'search_ranger_policies'. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the basic operation without mentioning side effects, permissions, pagination, or output format, which is insufficient for a list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one phrase), which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is not front-loaded with critical information and every sentence does not earn its place because it omits important context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'resources' means, how tags are applied, or what the response contains, making it inadequate for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the single parameter 'service_name' at all. The description adds no value beyond the schema, which is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List resources that have tags applied,' which clearly indicates the action and target. However, it lacks specificity on what kind of resources (e.g., Ranger resources) and does not distinguish from similar list tools like list_tag_definitions or list_tag_instances among the siblings.
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, filters, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for appropriate 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the policy_type mapping, failing to mention pagination (page_size, start_index), default behavior with no filters, response format, or any side effects. The tool is a search operation, but safety and limits are unaddressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief, but conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness. It front-loads the purpose but lacks structure and fails to cover essential details. Every sentence earns its place, but the description is too sparse to be genuinely helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not clarify filtering logic, pagination, or what happens with multiple filters. The agent cannot form a correct request based on this description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only covers policy_type with a numeric mapping, leaving 7 other parameters (service_name, policy_name, etc.) completely unexplained. The agent cannot infer their meaning or usage from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Search Ranger policies' which is a verb+resource, but it is nearly a tautology of the tool name. It adds minor value by explaining the policy_type mapping, but does not distinguish this search tool from sibling tools like search_tag_based_policies or other CRUD operations.
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, when not to use, or comparison with similar tools. The agent has no context to decide if search_ranger_policies is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention read-only status, error handling for missing users, or authentication requirements. The description is too terse to be transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is a single sentence, it is too brief and lacks structure. It omits essential details that could be conveyed concisely, resulting in under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter details, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, edge cases, or how it relates to sibling tools, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema parameter 'user_name' has 0% description coverage. The description adds no explanation of the parameter's format (e.g., username vs email) or constraints, leaving the agent without necessary context.
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 'List' and resource 'roles assigned to a user', indicating it retrieves a user's role assignments. However, it does not mention the system (e.g., Apache Ranger) and could be more specific to distinguish from related tools like 'get_ranger_role'.
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 'list_ranger_roles' or 'get_ranger_role'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description contains no behavioral disclosures beyond the bare purpose. With no annotations provided, the agent is unaware of whether this operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, what happens with empty results, or any potential side effects or rate limits. This is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It is concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of omitting important usage and parameter details. Nonetheless, it earns points for efficient structure.
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, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the tool requires more context about pagination behavior, result format, and default values. The description does not address these missing elements, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds no information about the two parameters (page_size, start_index). The agent gains no guidance on their semantics, format, or how they affect behavior, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Ranger policy-engine roles' clearly states the action (list) and resource (roles), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_ranger_groups or list_ranger_users beyond the resource name, which is already evident from the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 get_ranger_role for a specific role, or other list tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion conditions, 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description labels it as a WRITE OPERATION but does not disclose other behavioral traits like required permissions, idempotency, or what happens if the role does not exist or if users/groups are already assigned. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.
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 extremely concise at one sentence plus a flag. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could include more detail without becoming 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 tool has an output schema (not visible), return values are not described. No error cases or edge conditions are mentioned. For a write operation, more context (e.g., confirmation of success) is needed.
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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not. The role_id is required, but users and groups are strings with null default—no explanation of format (e.g., comma-separated IDs or names). This leaves ambiguity for the agent.
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 'Add users and/or groups to an existing role,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It also marks it as a WRITE OPERATION, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create, delete, or read roles, users, groups, and policies.
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 guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_ranger_role or update_ranger_role. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., role must already exist) 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?
Only highlights that it's a 'WRITE OPERATION' but lacks details on authorization, side effects (full replacement vs partial update), or response behavior. No annotations to supplement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise but omits critical information. It is front-loaded with the bold note, but brevity sacrifices 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?
Given the presence of output schema and sibling tools, the description fails to explain the JSON format or the update behavior, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate correctly.
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?
The description mentions 'from JSON' but does not explain the expected structure of role_json or the role_id parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent lacks essential guidance on parameter usage.
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 'Update' and the resource 'Ranger role', with 'from JSON' indicating the input format. It differentiates from siblings by resource type, though it could explicitly mention it applies to existing roles.
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 create_ranger_role or other update tools. No prerequisites or context about role existence are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like side effects, authorization needs, or impact. The note 'WRITE OPERATION' indicates mutation, but there is no detail on what happens upon creation, whether existing policies are affected, or what the output schema contains.
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 minimal but not wasteful. It is front-loaded with the purpose and emphasizes the write nature. However, given the complexity of the parameter, more detail would be warranted without violating conciseness.
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 an output schema existing, the description does not mention what the tool returns. For a creation tool with a complex JSON input, additional context about expected structure or constraints is missing, making the description incomplete.
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?
The schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It states the parameter is a 'full JSON payload', giving basic context, but does not specify the JSON structure, required fields, or validation rules, leaving the agent guessing.
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 identifies the action (Create) and resource (Ranger policy), and specifies the input format (full JSON payload). However, it does not distinguish this from other create tools like create_access_policy, create_masking_policy, or create_tag_based_policy, which are listed as siblings.
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 vs. alternatives. It only states it's a write operation, but fails to mention prerequisites, when JSON payload is appropriate, or when to use other creation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly labels the operation as write, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., partial vs full update, audit logging) or what the response contains despite an output schema existing.
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 short (one sentence plus bold note), which is concise but omits essential details. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but lacks structural elements like parameter explanations.
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 2 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an available output schema, the description should provide more context. It does not mention the output or how the JSON input relates to existing user attributes.
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 0%. The description does not explain the parameters user_id and user_json beyond their names. user_json could be ambiguous (JSON string with fields to update? Full user object?). No detail on format or required fields.
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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'Ranger user'. The bold 'WRITE OPERATION' further emphasizes the action. It is distinguishable from sibling CRUD tools like create_ranger_user and delete_ranger_user.
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 (e.g., create vs update). No prerequisites mentioned, such as needing the user to exist or the JSON format expected.
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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any behavioral traits like pagination, return format, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no waste, but it is too minimal to be fully informative. It earns its place but lacks substance.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify the scope of the listing (e.g., global or scoped) and what a 'tag instance' is. It does not provide this 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?
The tool takes no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter information, but baseline is 4 for zero parameters.
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 'list' and the resource 'tag instances' with context 'in Ranger'. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'list_tag_definitions' and 'list_tagged_resources', which refer to different entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'list_tag_definitions' or 'list_tagged_resources'. There are no contextual hints or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'search', implying read-only but does not confirm, nor does it mention auth, rate limits, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, with no wasted words. However, it lacks bullet points or structure to improve readability for an AI agent.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination behavior, response format, or how to filter effectively.
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 0%, and the description adds minimal parameter context. It mentions the tag service example (cm_tag) for tag_service_name but does not clarify tag_name, page_size, or start_index beyond their names.
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 tool searches tag-based policies on the tag service (e.g., cm_tag), which is specific and clearly indicates the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_ranger_policies, which may cover similar ground.
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 versus alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or suggest 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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'WRITE OPERATION' but does not describe whether the update is full or partial, idempotence, authentication needs, or any side effects. The impact of updating a managed group versus a custom group is unclear.
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 extremely short (two phrases), so it is concise but at the cost of missing essential information. It is not structured with sections or emphasis, but the brevity is not excessive—it could be longer to cover basics without being 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?
While an output schema exists and the tool's purpose is clear, the description lacks completeness for a mutation tool with no annotations. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how the output schema relates to the update. The agent has insufficient information to understand the full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. 'group_id' and 'group_json' are named but not explained: e.g., what format the JSON must follow, required fields, or the effect of partial JSON. The agent cannot infer parameter usage from the tool description 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 states 'Update a Ranger group from JSON' with a specific verb and resource, and the added 'WRITE OPERATION' emphasizes it as a mutation. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_ranger_group, delete_ranger_group, get_ranger_group, and list_ranger_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 create_ranger_group for new groups or update_ranger_policy for policies. There are no prerequisites or context about required permissions.
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 notes it is a WRITE OPERATION, implying mutation, but lacks details on side effects, required permissions, or whether updates are partial or complete replacements. No annotations are provided to supplement this.
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 short and to the point, but the brevity leaves out critical information that should be present, making it under-specified rather than optimally 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 annotations, output schema, and parameter details, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without additional external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the agent has no guidance on what policy_json should contain (e.g., JSON format, required fields, or partial update behavior).
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 'Update an existing Ranger policy by id' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to update versus create a new policy, or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it's a write operation and hints at parameter usage. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, authorization requirements, or what happens on conflict (e.g., duplication).
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: three sentences that front-load the purpose and provide essential usage hints without any fluff or redundancy. Every sentence serves a clear function.
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 (12 parameters, an output schema, and a large sibling set), the description is incomplete. It omits return value information (though output schema may help), does not explain all parameters, and gives no insight into when the tool is appropriate or how it interacts with other policies. It falls short of providing a complete picture for an 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?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that resources can be provided via 'resources_json' or simple fields and that user/group/role/access lists are comma-separated. However, it does not clarify many other parameters (service_name, policy_name, description) or the format of resources_json. This leaves significant gaps.
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 an access-control policy, and the bold 'WRITE OPERATION' emphasizes the action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'create_ranger_policy' which might be similar, leaving some ambiguity.
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 some guidance on how to use parameters (e.g., comma-separated values, resource specification via JSON or simple fields) but lacks any indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites or contextual cues for selection 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?
The description emphasizes that this is a 'WRITE OPERATION', which adds some transparency. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose important behaviors like idempotency, error handling if the group already exists, or whether the operation requires special 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 very concise at two sentences with no fluff. However, it is too minimal, lacking essential details that would justify its brevity. It is adequate but not optimally balanced between conciseness and informativeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is minimally sufficient for a simple create operation. It misses context about default values, handling duplicates, and the return value structure, which the output schema might cover but is not referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description does not compensate by explaining either parameter (group_name or description), leaving the agent without guidance on their expected values or constraints.
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 'Create a Ranger group', which is a specific verb and resource. It directly matches the tool name and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_ranger_user or create_ranger_role.
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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no information on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_ranger_group, or any prerequisites such as required permissions or existing services.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, performance implications, or read-only nature. The tool is likely a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the core function. It includes examples, which helps, but could be expanded slightly without losing brevity.
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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain pagination behavior or filtering options, and the return format is unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema defines four parameters (page_size, start_index, service_name, service_type) with defaults and titles, but the description does not explain their purpose or usage. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Ranger service instances', with concrete examples like cm_hive, cm_hdfs, cm_tag. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ranger_service which retrieves a single service.
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 get_ranger_service. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions write operation, omitting details like idempotency, conflict handling, permission requirements, or side effects. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
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 short (two sentences) and wastes no words, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core action, but could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.
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 presence of many sibling tools, a single undocumented parameter, and an output schema that could explain return values, the description is incomplete. It fails to inform the agent about parameter format or the result of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'policy_json' has 0% description coverage in the schema, and the description adds nothing about its expected format, structure, or constraints. No guidance on how to construct the JSON string.
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 or updates a policy via the apply/upsert endpoint, distinguishing it from the separate create and update sibling tools. The verb and resource 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 labels it a 'WRITE OPERATION' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling create_ranger_policy or update_ranger_policy tools. The upsert behavior is implied but not clarified.
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; description only adds 'WRITE OPERATION' but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or whether existing roles are overwritten. Does not disclose return type or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very short but under-specified. Single sentence with bold note is concise but misses key details, making it less effective than a slightly longer but more informative description.
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 5 parameters and many siblings, the description is incomplete. Does not explain output (though output schema exists) or differentiate from other create tools.
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 0%; description only hints that users/groups are optional members. Does not explain role_name, description, or service_name beyond their names 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?
Clearly states the tool creates a Ranger role with optional members. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_ranger_user and add_users_groups_to_role.
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 or prerequisites. Does not mention that members can also be added later via add_users_groups_to_role.
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 labels the operation as 'WRITE OPERATION' indicating it is a mutation, but it fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as whether deletion is reversible, what happens if the policy doesn't exist, or any permission requirements. This is insufficient for a destructive action.
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: a single sentence plus a bold warning. It is front-loaded with the action and identification methods. While it is efficient, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of many sibling tools, the description covers the basic usage of identifying a policy to delete. However, it lacks details about return values, error handling, and when deletion is appropriate. For a complete tool, this 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining that deletion can be done by either policy_id or by service_name+policy_name. This partially compensates for the missing schema details, but it does not clarify which parameter combinations are valid or required, nor does it specify constraints like mutual exclusivity.
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 (Delete) and the resource (a policy), and specifies the two identification methods (by id or by service_name + policy_name). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like update or create. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools like delete_ranger_group, but the context of 'policy' is clear enough.
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 tells how to identify the policy but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update, disable, or other delete operations). It lacks explicit when/when-not criteria or mentions of prerequisites or side effects.
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 exist, so the description carries the full burden. It declares 'WRITE OPERATION' but does not disclose side effects like cascading deletes, irreversibility, or permission requirements. This is minimal transparency for a destructive action.
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 short and front-loaded with the bold note. However, brevity comes at the cost of essential details; it is concise but incomplete.
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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description should still explain return behavior, error conditions, or ownership checks. It lacks these, leaving the agent with insufficient context for a delete operation.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'by id', which adds little beyond the parameter name 'role_id'. No format, constraints, or examples are provided to help the agent formulate the parameter value correctly.
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 'Delete' and the resource 'Ranger role', with the specific identifier 'by id'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_ranger_role' or 'update_ranger_role'.
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 'update_ranger_role' or 'get_ranger_role'. It only flags it as a write operation, but does not mention prerequisites or contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions 'by partial name' but does not disclose whether multiple results are returned, behavior on no match, or any limitations.
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 fluff. It is concise, though it could include more detail without becoming 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 low complexity (single param, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error cases, or how it differs from 'list_ranger_users'.
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 0%; the description adds that the 'name' parameter is a partial string, which adds some meaning beyond the schema's 'Name' label. However, it does not specify format, case sensitivity, or search semantics.
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 (search) and resource (Ranger users) with a specific method (by partial name). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_ranger_users' which likely lists all users.
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. It does not mention that this tool is for partial name matching while others are for full listing or exact lookups.
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 implies a read-only retrieval but does not mention behavior on missing names, authentication requirements, or return format. Minimal disclosure beyond the name.
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 with no extraneous words. It states the purpose efficiently, though it could include more detail without being 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?
Tool is simple with one parameter and has an output schema, but the description does not explain what is returned or any edge cases. For a retrieval tool, more context on behavior and output would be expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no semantics beyond the parameter name 'tag_name'. No format, constraints, or examples are provided, leaving the agent to guess details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('a tag definition'), and the method ('by name'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_tag_definitions which list all definitions, and CRUD tools for other entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, such as list_tag_definitions for retrieving all definitions. The usage is implied but not clarified with conditions 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it's a write operation and gives data_mask_type examples. Missing details like whether existing policies are overwritten, required permissions, error conditions, or confirmation of success/failure. Minimal 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 very short (two lines plus example list). It uses bold for emphasis but lacks structure. It could be improved with bullet points or clearer separation of intent vs examples. Still, it is not overly verbose and front-loads the core purpose.
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 11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not cover most parameters, does not explain the output schema (even though one exists), and omits error handling or return behavior. The depth is insufficient for a complex creation 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 schema has 11 parameters with 0% coverage (no descriptions in schema). The description adds value by listing example values for data_mask_type (MASK, MASK_SHOW_LAST_4, etc.). However, it does not explain the other 10 parameters like service_name, policy_name, users, groups, etc., leaving significant 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 clearly states it creates a data-masking policy, explicitly noting the policyType=1. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_access_policy or create_tag_based_policy. The verb 'create' and resource 'masking policy' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings include various policy creation tools, the description lacks any context about prerequisites, conflicts, or typical scenarios. The only hint is 'WRITE OPERATION', which is too generic to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'WRITE OPERATION' but does not cover side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error scenarios, 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 short and to the point, with an emphasized 'WRITE OPERATION' and specific parameter notes. It avoids redundancy but could benefit from a clearer separation of overall purpose vs parameter details.
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 zero schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It partially explains two of six parameters, but lacks completeness on required fields like user_name, password constraints, and return values despite an output schema existing.
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 description adds meaning for user_roles and group_ids (e.g., 'ROLE_USER or ROLE_SYS_ADMIN', 'comma-separated numeric ids'), which the schema lacks. However, it does not explain other parameters like user_name, password, first_name, last_name, so coverage is incomplete.
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 'Create a Ranger user' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_ranger_user or get_ranger_user. The 'WRITE OPERATION' emphasis further clarifies the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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. It only indicates it's a write operation, but does not mention when to avoid it or suggest other tools for similar 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?
The description labels the operation as 'WRITE' but provides no further behavioral details such as cascading effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or impact on associated policies/users. With no annotations, the description carries full burden for transparency, and it 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 extremely concise (two fragments) and front-loads the action. However, it sacrifices helpful detail; still appropriate for a simple delete tool.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context about safety, side effects, and typical use cases (e.g., deleting a non-existent group may error). It does not leverage sibling tool names to guide selection.
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?
The only parameter 'group_id' is an integer, but the description adds no meaning beyond 'by id'. It does not explain how to obtain the id, validate it, or any constraints. Schema coverage is 0% so the description should compensate, but it does not.
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 Ranger group by id', specifying the verb (delete), resource (Ranger group), and method (by id). It also adds 'WRITE OPERATION' to emphasize mutability. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_ranger_group or get_ranger_group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., deactivation, soft delete), prerequisites (e.g., group must exist), or when not to use it. The description is purely functional without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description marks 'WRITE OPERATION' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., cascade deletions), permission requirements, or whether the operation is reversible. For a delete tool with no annotations, this 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one sentence plus bold label. No filler 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?
For a simple tool with one parameter, the description lacks critical context: outcome (permanent?), error handling, expected response. Without annotations or output schema, more context is needed.
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?
Only parameter user_id is described implicitly as 'by id'. Schema coverage is 0%, so description should add meaning to the parameter, but it only restates the obvious. No format, examples, or source explanation.
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 (Delete) and resource (Ranger user) with identifier method (by id). It is distinct from sibling tools like delete_ranger_group or delete_ranger_role.
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 vs alternatives (e.g., delete vs deactivate), no prerequisites or notes on recoverability. The description only states what it does, not when to choose 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 provided; description only says 'Get' implying read-only but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundancy. Efficient for a simple getter, though could be slightly more informative.
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?
With output schema present, description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool. However, lacks guidance on when to use vs. list services.
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?
Description adds minimal value beyond schema; 'by name' is implicit from parameter name 'service_name'. Schema description coverage is 0% and description does not compensate.
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 'Get', resource 'Ranger service instance', and method 'by name'. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_ranger_group or list_ranger_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 over similar tools like list_ranger_services. Missing context about distinguishing single vs. list retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states retrieval by name but does not disclose what happens if the user doesn't exist, required permissions, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One clear sentence with no waste. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema available), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain the output or error conditions, which would be helpful.
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 0% as the description does not explain the parameter beyond what the schema provides. The description says 'by name' which is implicit, but adds no additional semantic detail such as format or uniqueness.
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 action (get) and the resource (Ranger user) and the method (by name). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_ranger_users or lookup_ranger_users.
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 list_ranger_users or lookup_ranger_users. No context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description adds no behavioral context (e.g., read-only, auth requirements, error handling). Fails to compensate for missing annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence, front-loaded with action and resource, 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?
Adequate for a simple get-by-name tool with one parameter and an output schema, but lacks details on edge cases or expected behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and description adds no additional meaning for the only parameter 'group_name' beyond its name and type.
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 'Get', resource 'Ranger group', and method 'by name'. Distinct from sibling tools like list_ranger_groups, update_ranger_group, etc.
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?
Implied usage for retrieving a single group by name, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, and no alternatives mentioned despite many 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it is a write operation, but fails to disclose side effects, idempotency, error behavior, permission requirements, or return value structure. The existence of an output schema is not mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, no redundant information. The purpose is front-loaded, and the access_type hint is valuable. Every word 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?
With 7 parameters (4 required), an output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not cover parameter semantics, return values, prerequisites, or the relationship to other tag service operations.
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 0%, and the description only adds meaning for one parameter (access_type) by specifying the 'target service:action' format. The other six parameters, including required ones like tag_service_name and tag_name, are left unexplained.
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 ('Create'), the resource ('tag-based access policy'), and the target service ('tag service e.g. cm_tag'). The explicit 'WRITE OPERATION' adds emphasis. This effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_access_policy' which is likely resource-based.
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 a helpful hint on access_type format but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a resource-based policy is needed. No exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks any behavioral information such as permissions, rate limits, side effects, or return format. The description adds no value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what 'tag type definitions' are or what the output contains, which could be improved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description correctly implies no parameters are needed.
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 'List' and the resource 'Ranger tag type definitions'. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_ranger_groups or list_ranger_roles.
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. The description does not mention contexts, exclusions, or related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as case sensitivity, wildcard support, pagination, result limits, or what a partial match entails (e.g., prefix, substring). The agent has minimal insight into how the tool behaves beyond the basic search action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the essential purpose without extraneous information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding. However, it lacks details on expected output (e.g., returns multiple groups? exact behavior of partial match) and does not address potential edge cases, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds the key insight that the 'name' parameter accepts a partial name for searching. However, it omits details like format, allowed patterns, maximum length, or whether the search is case-sensitive, leaving some ambiguity.
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 searches Ranger groups by partial name, using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_ranger_groups' (which lists all) and 'get_ranger_group' (which retrieves a specific group) by highlighting the partial name search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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_ranger_groups' or 'get_ranger_group'. For example, it does not mention that this tool is useful for fuzzy searches when the exact name is unknown, nor does it exclude scenarios where an exact match or full list is needed.
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; description merely states retrieval, omitting details like error handling, behavior when both parameters are provided or none, or response structure. The burden falls entirely on 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with essential information. 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 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description lacks detail on return value, parameter interaction, and use cases. Output schema exists but description does not leverage it.
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 0%, so description adds meaning by indicating either id or name can be used. However, it does not clarify behavior when both or neither are provided, which is needed.
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 verb 'Get', resource 'role', and criteria 'by id or name'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_ranger_roles and create_ranger_role by specifying identification of a single role.
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?
Implies usage for retrieving a single role by id or name but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_ranger_roles or other retrieval 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 must disclose behavior. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, require no special permissions, or describe any potential side effects. It is acceptable but could be more explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it quick to parse.
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 that the tool has an output schema (which likely defines the returned structure), the description is adequately complete for a simple retrieval tool. It covers the core purpose, though it could mention that the service type parameter corresponds to a component type or list valid types.
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?
The schema has one parameter 'service_type' with no description or enum. The description uses 'component type' which adds minimal clarity—it does not explain what constitutes a valid component type or provide examples. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but fails to do so meaningfully.
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 retrieves the service definition schema (access types, resources, mask types) for a component type. The verb 'Get' and resource 'service definition schema' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like get_ranger_service or get_ranger_policy.
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., get_ranger_service, search_ranger_policies). There is no context on prerequisites, common use cases, or when this tool is particularly appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'Get' indicating a read operation, but omits details such as authentication requirements, behavior on missing policy (error or null), or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words, delivering the essential information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 optional parameters and an output schema, the description explains the two lookup modes adequately. However, it lacks information on edge cases (e.g., not found behavior) and does not leverage the output schema to describe the return value shape.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that you can use either policy_id or service_name+policy_name, but it does not clarify that these are alternatives, not combined, nor does it specify that both service_name and policy_name are required when using the name-based lookup.
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 'Get' and the resource 'policy', and specifies two distinct lookup methods: by ID alone or by service_name + policy_name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ranger_policies and search_ranger_policies.
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 when to use this tool: when you have either a policy ID or a service name plus policy name. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools (e.g., for listing or searching) or mention prerequisites.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/frothkoetter/ranger-mcp-server'

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