MCP Apify

by fvegah

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly distinct by resource (actor, dataset, run, etc.) and action (get, list, run), but some overlap exists, such as get_run_dataset_items and get_dataset_items, which could cause confusion about which to use for dataset access. The descriptions help clarify, but the boundaries between run-specific and general dataset tools are not perfectly sharp.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, with verbs like get, list, run, abort, and resurrect applied predictably to nouns like actor, dataset, run, etc. There are no deviations in style or convention, making the naming scheme clear and systematic.
Tool Count3/5
With 28 tools, the count feels heavy for the domain of managing Apify actors, datasets, runs, and related resources. While it covers many operations, it may be overwhelming for agents, as some tools could be consolidated or omitted without losing functionality, such as having multiple get_* variants that might be redundant in practice.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive CRUD and lifecycle coverage for the Apify domain, including operations for actors, datasets, key-value stores, runs, schedules, and tasks. It supports creation (run_actor, run_task), retrieval (get_*, list_*), updates (resurrect_run), and deletion (abort_run), with no obvious gaps that would hinder agent workflows.
Average 2.9/5 across 28 of 28 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get list') without explaining return format (e.g., structure, pagination), permissions required, rate limits, or whether it's read-only (implied but not confirmed). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters and no output schema.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details like scope or differentiation from siblings. Every word earns its place, but it's under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits (e.g., pagination behavior, return format) or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool effectively beyond basic parameters. A list tool with pagination needs more 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'offset', 'limit', and 'unnamed' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'unnamed' affects results or typical use cases for pagination. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get list of datasets' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('datasets'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about scope (e.g., all datasets vs. filtered) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_dataset' (which retrieves a specific dataset) or 'get_dataset_items' (which gets items within a dataset).
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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'list_datasets' over 'get_dataset' (for a single dataset) or other list tools like 'list_actors', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional input override' but fails to describe key traits: whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what happens after running (e.g., asynchronous execution). This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs mutations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in a single sentence. There's no wasted text, making it efficient for quick comprehension, though it could benefit from slightly more detail to improve clarity 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 complexity of running a task (likely involving execution and potential side-effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, return values, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer usage correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It hints at 'optional input override' relating to 'input_data', but doesn't explain the merging behavior or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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 'Run a task with optional input override' clearly states the verb ('Run') and resource ('task'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'run' entails (e.g., execution, initiation, or processing). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_task' or 'list_tasks' by implying an action, but lacks specificity about the outcome or context of running a task.
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. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'run_task' over 'run_actor' (a sibling tool), or prerequisites like needing an existing task. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get details' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, whether it returns structured metadata or raw data, or any rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool with potential data access implications.
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, efficient sentence ('Get details of a specific dataset.') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 of data retrieval tools and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' entail (e.g., JSON metadata, statistics), how errors are handled, or what the return format is. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this omission leaves significant gaps in understanding its full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'dataset_id' documented as 'Dataset ID or username~dataset-name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid IDs or how to resolve conflicts. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides adequate parameter semantics.
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 'Get details of a specific dataset' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('dataset'), but it's vague about what 'details' includes (e.g., metadata, structure, size). It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'list_datasets' (which lists multiple datasets) or 'get_dataset_items' (which retrieves content items), leaving the scope ambiguous.
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. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for metadata retrieval versus data access, or when to prefer 'get_dataset_items' for actual content. The description implies usage for a single dataset but offers no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get items' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is paginated (hinted by offset/limit in schema but not described), what the response format is (no output schema), or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Get items from a dataset.') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., structure of items), behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling, or how it differs from siblings. For a data retrieval tool with multiple parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters (dataset_id, offset, limit, clean, fields) are documented in the schema with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as explaining what 'clean' entails beyond the schema's 'Remove empty items and hidden fields'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get items from a dataset' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('items from a dataset'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar siblings like 'get_dataset' (which might retrieve metadata) or 'get_run_dataset_items' (which might retrieve items from a run-specific dataset), leaving the scope vague regarding what distinguishes it.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid dataset_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_datasets' (for listing datasets) or 'get_run_dataset_items' (for run-specific items), leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a record, implying a read operation, but doesn't cover aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the key doesn't exist), authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of optimal 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'record' entails, how results are returned, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, more context is needed to fully understand its operation and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('store_id' and 'key') with descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 the action ('Get') and resource ('record from a key-value store'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_key_value_store' or 'list_keys', which operate on similar resources. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique.
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. Sibling tools include 'list_keys' and 'get_key_value_store', which might be relevant for related operations, but the description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving items but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit), authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'clean' does beyond the schema. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, performance implications, or how it differs from similar tools. Without annotations or output schema, more context is needed for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all 5 parameters (e.g., run_id, offset, limit, clean, fields). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get items from a run's default dataset' clearly states the action (get) and target (items from a run's default dataset), but it's somewhat vague about what 'items' entail and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_dataset_items' or 'get_run_output'. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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_dataset_items' or 'get_run_output'. The description implies usage for retrieving dataset items associated with a run, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual dependencies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get details'), but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. It lacks details on what 'details' entail, leaving behavioral traits unclear.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, potential errors, or usage context, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the single parameter 'schedule_id'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.
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 the tool's purpose ('Get details of a specific schedule') with a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('schedule'), but it's vague about what 'details' include and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_schedule_log' or 'list_schedules'. It's adequate but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't specify that this is for retrieving a single schedule by ID, unlike 'list_schedules' for multiple schedules or 'get_schedule_log' for logs. The description offers no context for selection among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but fails to describe key behaviors such as what data is returned, error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's idempotent. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get the last run of a task.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be overly brief for completeness, it earns full marks for conciseness and structure by avoiding redundancy and staying focused.
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 (a read operation with filtering), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, making it inadequate for the agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting both parameters ('task_id' and 'status') clearly with an enum for 'status'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as examples or usage notes, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.
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 'Get the last run of a task' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('last run of a task'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'last run' entails (e.g., metadata, status, timing) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_last_run' or 'get_run', which could cause confusion.
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. For example, it does not explain when to choose 'get_task_last_run' over 'get_last_run', 'get_run', or 'list_task_runs', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool aborts executions but lacks details on permissions needed, side effects (e.g., whether data is lost), rate limits, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool, as it doesn't clarify if the abort is immediate or reversible.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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 as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like what happens post-abort, error conditions, or how to verify success, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('run_id' and 'gracefully') well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the implications of 'gracefully' or how to obtain a 'run_id'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('abort') and target ('a running actor execution'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'resurrect_run' or 'get_run', which would require mentioning it's for stopping active executions versus reviving or inspecting them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the run must be active), exclusions (e.g., not for completed runs), or compare it to siblings like 'resurrect_run' for reviving runs or 'get_run' for checking status, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: whether it returns a single run object or null if none exists, what happens with invalid actor IDs, if there are rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., a run object with fields like status, start time, etc.), error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a read operation with structured output, this leaves the agent guessing about the result format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (actor_id and status with enum values). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the actor ID format or how status filtering works when no runs match. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Get') and resource ('last run of an actor'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_run' (which retrieves a specific run) and 'list_actor_runs' (which lists multiple runs), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions in the description text itself.
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. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'get_last_run' over 'get_run' (for a specific run ID) or 'list_actor_runs' (for multiple runs), nor does it discuss prerequisites like needing an actor ID. Usage context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what details are retrieved but lacks information on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely involves sensitive run data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and lists the retrieved details concisely, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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 of run management tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should explain the return format, potential errors, or how it integrates with siblings like 'abort_run' or 'resurrect_run'. The current description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the context of 'run_id' or the implications of 'wait_for_finish'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Get' and the resource 'details of a specific run', specifying what information is retrieved (status, stats, and storage IDs). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_last_run' or 'get_run_log' by focusing on comprehensive run details rather than specific aspects, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_last_run' for recent runs or 'get_run_log' for logs. The description implies usage for retrieving detailed run information but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured vs. unstructured data, or handles errors. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns log data. It doesn't explain what the log output contains (e.g., text, structured data, timestamps) or any behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'run_id' parameter. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or context about run IDs), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('log output of a run'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_run_output' or 'get_schedule_log', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_run_output' and 'get_schedule_log' available, there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool's functionality from those similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't specify if it's safe, requires permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.
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 (retrieving output from a key-value store), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'OUTPUT record' entails, potential errors, or behavioral traits, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand full usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'run_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
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 ('Get') and the resource ('OUTPUT record from a run's default key-value store'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_run' or 'get_key_value_store', which might retrieve different aspects of runs or key-value stores, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_run' or 'get_key_value_store', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what the log contains (e.g., format, timestamps). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns detailed execution data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 of retrieving execution logs (which may involve structured data like timestamps, statuses, or errors), the lack of annotations and output schema means the description is incomplete. It doesn't hint at the return format or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'schedule_id' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what a schedule ID is or where to find it. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
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 ('Get') and resource ('execution log of a schedule'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_run_log' or 'get_schedule', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_run_log' or 'get_schedule', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage. It's a basic statement without any usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states it 'gets details' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what specific details are returned beyond 'input configuration'. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose. It could be slightly more detailed to improve completeness, but it avoids waste and is appropriately sized.
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 (a read operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral context, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively without structured output information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'task_id' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, but doesn't contradict it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific task'), specifying it includes 'input configuration'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_task_last_run' or 'list_tasks', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_tasks' or 'get_task_last_run'. The description implies usage for retrieving details of a known task, but offers no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond offset/limit, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a list operation with filtering and pagination parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (actor_id, offset, limit, status). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering by actor, which is already covered in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get list') and resource ('runs for a specific actor'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_user_runs' or 'list_task_runs', which also list runs but for different entities, so it misses explicit sibling 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_user_runs' or 'get_last_run'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an actor ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions 'Returns actors created or used by the user', which hints at read-only behavior and user-scoping, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination (beyond schema), error handling, or return format. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating scope details into a second sentence for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a list operation with user-scoping, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'actor' is in this context, how results are ordered, whether filtering beyond 'my' is possible, or what the return structure looks like. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters well-documented in the schema (offset, limit, my). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the 'my' parameter's implications or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Get') and resource ('list of actors'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies 'actors created or used by the user', which adds useful context about scope. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_actor' or 'list_actor_runs', missing full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools available (like 'get_actor' for single actors or 'list_actor_runs' for runs), there's no indication of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states it 'lists keys' but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not confirmed), pagination behavior (hinted by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('List keys in a key-value store'), making it immediately scannable. Every element earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, errors), usage guidelines, and output details (e.g., format of returned keys). While the schema covers parameters, the description fails to provide a holistic view needed for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (store_id, limit, exclusive_start_key). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying key formats or pagination strategies. Baseline score of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('keys in a key-value store'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_key_value_store' (which retrieves store metadata) by focusing on keys within a store. However, it doesn't specify if this lists all keys or filtered subsets, slightly reducing specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing store), exclusions (e.g., not for retrieving values), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_key_value_store' (for store details) or 'get_key' (if it existed for specific keys). Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get list' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit parameters), whether the list includes metadata about stores, or any authentication/rate limit considerations. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what information is returned about each key-value store, whether the list is paginated (implied by parameters but not stated), or how this differs from the sibling 'get_key_value_store' tool. The description should provide more context about the operation's behavior and results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for offset, limit, and unnamed parameters including defaults. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is complete.
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 'Get list of key-value stores' clearly states the action (get list) and resource (key-value stores), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get_key_value_store' (singular vs. plural), which could cause confusion about when to use each one.
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. With a sibling tool named 'get_key_value_store' (singular) that presumably retrieves a specific store, there's no indication whether this tool is for listing all stores, filtered lists, or paginated results versus retrieving a single store by identifier.
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 what the tool returns ('list of actor tasks') without describing pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit parameters but not explained), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the list returns. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information ('Get list of actor tasks').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple but undocumented behavioral profile, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'task' represents in this context (saved actor configurations), how results are structured, or any system constraints. For a tool with 2 parameters and multiple similar siblings, more contextual information would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (offset and limit) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'list of actor tasks' with clarification that these are 'saved actor configurations'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_task' (singular) and 'list_task_runs' (executions rather than configurations). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar siblings like 'list_actors'.
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. It doesn't mention when to use 'list_tasks' versus 'get_task' (for a specific task), 'list_actors' (for actor definitions), or 'list_task_runs' (for executions). No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves a list but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if no runs exist. This is inadequate for a tool with potential side effects like data retrieval.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., format of the list, what fields are included), error conditions, or behavioral details like pagination. For a list retrieval tool with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all four parameters (offset, limit, status, desc) with defaults and enums. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 ('Get list') and resource ('runs for the current user across all actors'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_actor_runs' or 'list_task_runs', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_actor_runs' or 'get_last_run'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as authentication or user-specific access, and doesn't mention any exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies mutation ('resurrect') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, side effects, rate limits, or what 'continue processing' entails. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 mutation nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'resurrect' means operationally, what happens after resurrection, or error conditions. More context is needed for a tool that modifies state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'run_id' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('resurrect') and target ('a finished run'), with the purpose being to 'continue processing'. It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'abort_run' or 'get_run'.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the run must be finished), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'run_actor' or 'run_task' for new runs.
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 but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'optional input and configuration' but doesn't disclose what happens during execution: whether this is synchronous/asynchronous, what permissions are needed, if it consumes resources/credits, what happens on failure, or what the expected output format is. For a tool that initiates potentially resource-intensive operations, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place: 'Start' (verb), 'new run' (action), 'of an actor' (resource), 'with optional input and configuration' (scope). There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'run' entails, what happens after starting (e.g., returns a run ID?), error conditions, or resource implications. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool effectively despite the complete parameter schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'optional input and configuration' which is already evident from the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 ('Start a new run') and resource ('of an actor'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_actor' or 'list_actor_runs' by focusing on execution rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'run_task' which has a similar execution pattern for a different resource type.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing actor), when to choose this over 'run_task', or any constraints beyond the optional parameters listed. The agent must infer usage from parameter names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include (e.g., metadata, configuration). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part contributing to understanding.
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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output information, which are needed for full contextual understanding despite the simple schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'store_id' documented as 'Store ID or username~store-name'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get details') and resource ('of a specific key-value store'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_key_value_stores' or 'list_keys', which would require mentioning this retrieves metadata for a single store rather than listing multiple stores or keys.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a store ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_key_value_stores' for browsing stores or 'list_keys' for viewing keys within a store.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves user information but doesn't specify what information is returned, whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), authentication requirements, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves sensitive data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's potential complexity (retrieving user info often involves sensitive data and authentication) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, any security implications, or error conditions, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective use.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required,' so it misses a perfect score. Baseline is 3 for high schema coverage, but the tool's zero-param nature elevates it slightly.
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 ('Get') and resource ('information about the current authenticated user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_actor' or 'get_record', which also retrieve information about specific entities, so it misses full sibling 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent with no usage context beyond the basic purpose.
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 but only states it 'gets' a list, implying a read operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with no schedules, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 low complexity (simple list operation), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., list structure) or error handling, which would improve completeness for a tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the offset and limit parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get list') and resource ('schedules'), specifying it's for 'automatic actor/task execution' which adds useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_schedule' (singular) or other list tools, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_schedule' (for a single schedule) or other list tools for different resources. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, offering only basic context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' a list, implying a read operation, but doesn't mention if it's safe, requires permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., pagination details beyond schema). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, permissions) and output details, which are important for a list operation. It's complete enough to understand what it does but not how it behaves.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (task_id, offset, limit, status) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering by task, which is covered by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Get list') and resource ('runs for a specific task'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_actor_runs' and 'list_user_runs' by specifying 'task' scope, though it could be more explicit about the distinction. It avoids tautology by not just restating the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'get_task_last_run' for a single run or 'list_user_runs' for a broader scope, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic retrieval.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get details of a specific actor') and adds specifics ('including versions, builds, and runs info') without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 (retrieving detailed actor data), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks behavioral details and output information, making it incomplete for full agent understanding without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the input schema fully documenting the 'actor_id' parameter, including format examples. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific actor'), specifying what information is retrieved ('including versions, builds, and runs info'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_actors' (which lists multiple actors) and 'get_user_info' (which focuses on user data), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_last_run' or 'get_run' which might overlap in run-related details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when detailed actor information is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_actors' for overviews or 'get_run' for specific run data. It mentions the scope ('versions, builds, and runs info'), which helps contextualize, but lacks clear when-not-to-use statements or 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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/fvegah/mcp-apify'

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