GIMS Automation MCP Server

by gelarm

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: v0.2.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool targets a specific entity and action with clear prefixes. Similar tools like get_script and get_script_code are explicitly differentiated in descriptions. No overlapping purposes found.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_script_folder, list_datasource_types). Multi-word nouns like datasource_type_method still fit the pattern. Minor deviation like compare_with_git is still readable.
Tool Count1/5
At 61 tools, this is far beyond the '25+' threshold and falls into the extreme category. While the server covers many entity types, the sheer number may overwhelm agents and increase selection error rates.
Completeness4/5
The surface provides full CRUD for scripts, datasource types (with properties/methods/parameters), and activator types (with properties), plus search, export/import, and validation. The only notable gap is the lack of a tool to execute scripts directly, as execution log retrieval suggests manual execution.
Average 3.3/5 across 61 of 61 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the action. It fails to mention idempotency, partial update semantics, permission requirements, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Although very short, it is under-specified rather than concise. A single tautological sentence does not earn high marks for structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with five parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It provides no context about update semantics, return values, or side effects.
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 fully documents all five parameters with descriptions, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, but the baseline for high coverage is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a method parameter' directly restates the tool name without adding specificity about what fields are affected or how it functions. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_method_parameter or update_datasource_type_method.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, such as prerequisites, scenarios, or alternatives. It is purely a restatement of the action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It says nothing about side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens to the folder or its children. This is completely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (six words), but it fails the 'every sentence earns its place' test because it simply restates the tool name. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no description of behavior. Given the existence of sibling update tools for other folder types, the description provides no context about update semantics, impacts, or return values, making it highly incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters ('New name', 'Folder ID', 'New parent folder ID'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema already documents the parameters sufficiently, earning the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an activator type folder' is essentially a human-readable restatement of the tool name. It provides no additional scope, details, or differentiation from siblings like update_script_folder or update_datasource_type_folder.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. The description is a bare sentence with no contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only indicates 'update' (a mutation) but does not disclose permissions, reversibility, side effects, or what happens to existing data. This is a significant gap for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and essentially restates the tool name. While concise, it is under-specified and does not add information beyond the tool's title, which is not true conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the context, effects, or what fields are updatable in practice.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description (e.g., 'New name', 'New version'). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a datasource type' clearly states the action and resource, but it is minimal and does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_datasource_type_folder or update_datasource_type_property. It lacks any scope or detail about what updating entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or cases where other tools should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a script' merely restates the tool's name and does not reveal any behavior such as permanence, permission requirements, or cascading effects. This is a complete lack of transparency for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is under-specified, essentially a restatement of the tool name. While it is short, it does not earn its place by adding value; it simply repeats the purpose without any structural enhancement or clarification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not mention that deletion is permanent, any required permissions, or what happens to related entities. For a destructive tool, this minimal context is insufficient for safe and correct 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% coverage with the parameter 'script_id' described as 'Script ID to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'script', which is unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_script_folder and delete_datasource_type by naming the specific resource type. However, it could be more specific about what deleting a script entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or situations where deletion is irreversible. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects, permissions, and return values. It only says 'update', omitting crucial information such as whether this is a partial update, whether it can fail, or what the response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and is not bloated, but it is under-specified. It earns its place by stating the core action, yet it omits necessary details that would make it truly effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description must compensate by explaining behavior and expected results. It does not, leaving the agent without essential context for a mutation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each property already described ('New name', 'Folder ID', 'New parent folder ID'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the resource (datasource type folder) and the action (update), distinguishing it from similar folder tools for scripts and activator types. However, the verb 'update' is vague and does not specify which properties are affected, making the purpose only somewhat clear.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_datasource_type_folder or delete_datasource_type_folder. The description does not mention typical scenarios, prerequisites, or when it is not appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only repeats the action 'delete'. It does not mention whether deletion is recursive, reversible, or requires special permissions, nor any side effects on child objects or dependent data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short for a simple operation, though it is extremely sparse in content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical context such as what happens to contained items, whether the folder must be empty, or if the deletion is permanent. The minimal description is not sufficient for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents folder_id as 'Folder ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, so it neither helps nor harms; the schema already does the job.
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 'Delete a datasource type folder' clearly specifies the verb (delete) and the resource (datasource type folder). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_datasource_type by explicitly stating 'folder', but it essentially restates the tool name without adding new information.
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 delete_datasource_type or delete_script_folder. It does not mention prerequisites, consequences, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Delete a script folder' without mentioning irreversibility, required permissions, cascade effects, or what happens to contained scripts, offering no transparency beyond the literal action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single non-redundant sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is appropriately concise, though it might be too terse to fully support the tool's context.
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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on side effects, prerequisites, expected response, or any contextual details needed for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the only parameter, folder_id, with 'Folder ID to delete' (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, matching the baseline 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 'Delete a script folder' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (script folder), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_script or delete_datasource_type. However, it lacks any qualifiers or scope details that would elevate it to 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or references to other folder-related tools, leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Update an existing script folder' without explaining side effects (e.g., moving folders when parent_folder_id changes), reversibility, permissions, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. While it is concise, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful detail, but conciseness itself is not a problem.
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 for understanding the implications of updating a script folder. The schema covers parameter semantics, but the description does not explain behavior, return values, or when to use the tool, making it insufficient for a mutation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for name, folder_id, and parent_folder_id, so the schema sufficiently documents all parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the 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 'Update' and the resource 'script folder', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_script_folder and delete_script_folder. However, it does not specify which fields can be updated, relying on the schema for that detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the folder needing to exist, or scenarios where create_script_folder or delete_script_folder would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Create a new activator type' and does not disclose any side effects, permissions, validation rules, or post-creation behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff, but it under-specifies the tool. It is appropriately short but sacrifices content, lacking details that would make it genuinely useful.
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 and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It provides no context on prerequisites, side effects, or usage scenarios, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all five parameters described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Create' and the resource 'activator type', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like create_activator_type_folder or create_datasource_type. However, it lacks any additional scope or context, such as details about required properties or folder assignment.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_activator_type_folder or when specific parameters like folder_id or code are needed. The description provides no usage 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only indicates an action without disclosing side effects, duplicate handling, permission requirements, or what happens to existing data. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, but it largely restates the tool name and adds no informational value beyond the name. It is not bloated, but it is under-specified rather than being appropriately 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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return values, prerequisites, or behavioral outcomes. It does not, leaving the tool incomplete for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, so coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no additional parameter context, which aligns with the baseline of 3 given 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 'Create a new datasource type' is a clear verb+resource combination. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like create_datasource_type_folder or create_datasource_type_property, but the resource name is specific enough to indicate the target entity.
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 lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or when this specific creation tool should be chosen over similar create_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without noting whether deletion is permanent, cascades to related entities, or requires specific permissions. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. Being concise is good, but this is too terse to convey important context about deletion behavior or usage. It is appropriate in length for such a simple tool but lacks substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description still feels incomplete. It fails to mention irreversible effects, authorization requirements, or any relationship to other datasource type method operations. A more complete description would note the destructive nature and any cascade implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'Method ID', which is already in the schema. The parameter is simple and self-explanatory, so no additional detail is necessary, but the description contributes nothing beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a datasource type method' clearly identifies the action (delete) and the specific resource (datasource type method), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_datasource_type or delete_method_parameter. It is concise but lacks explicit differentiation from similar delete operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_datasource_type or delete_method_parameter. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or context where this operation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action with no information on permissions, side effects, parent folder handling, or what happens on success or failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It is appropriately brief for a simple create operation, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create operation with no annotations or output schema, the description lacks context about the response format, whether parent folders are created automatically, or any prerequisites. It is minimally sufficient for the simplest case but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is provided structurally.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'create' and resource 'activator type folder', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_script_folder and create_datasource_type_folder. It is immediately obvious what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the action, and usage must be inferred from the resource name rather than explicit instructions 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. It only states the operation is a creation but doesn't disclose behavior such as uniqueness enforcement, folder assignment, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately short for a simple creation tool, though it lacks additional structure or detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what happens on success, error conditions, or relationship to folders. This minimal description leaves significant gaps for an agent selecting or invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'create' and doesn't compensate for any gaps, but the baseline is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new script' clearly states the action (create) and resource (script). It distinguishes from create_script_folder and other create_* siblings, though it doesn't elaborate on what the script creation involves.
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 update_script, delete_script, or create_script_folder. There is no mention of prerequisites, 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, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Delete' and offers no information about permanence, cascading effects, whether folder contents are also deleted, or permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to scan, though it could arguably say more. It earns its place as a minimal statement of purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context about irreversibility, side effects, or relationships to other resources. While the tool is simple, the description does not fully cover what the agent needs to understand the operation's implications.
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 provides 100% coverage for folder_id (described as 'Folder ID'), meeting the high-coverage baseline. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema is sufficient for this simple single-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Delete an activator type folder'. It distinguishes from sibling delete operations (e.g., delete_datasource_type_folder, delete_script_folder) by naming the specific resource type. No extra context is provided, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer deleting an entire activator type versus a folder, or any prerequisites. The description simply restates the operation without providing decision context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and does not mention side effects, overwrite behavior, the role of update_existing, or any required permissions.
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, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices detail that might be expected in a more thorough description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and a nested files parameter, the description is too minimal to fully guide an agent. It omits details about conflict handling, return values, and what 'Git format' means in practical terms.
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 already provides clear descriptions for all three parameters, including the nested files dictionary. The description adds no additional parameter context, but this is unnecessary given the 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 identifies the action (import), resource (activator type), and source (Git format), distinguishing it from sibling import tools for scripts or datasource types. However, 'Git format' is ambiguous and could benefit from elaboration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_activator_type, import_datasource_type, or import_script. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, partial vs. full update semantics, or any requirements or consequences of the update.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no redundant text. It is efficient, though it could benefit from a bit more contextual detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return behavior, whether the update is partial, or the need for an existing property ID, making it hard for an agent to invoke confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('an activator type property'), distinguishing it from sibling create/delete/list tools. It lacks field specifics, but the schema covers those, so the purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes related operations, but the description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing property_id) or scenarios where updating is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update' without mentioning side effects, permissions, reversibility, or response characteristics. The schema lists editable fields but does not explain the update semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could have included a bit more context about the update's scope. The brevity is acceptable given the schema coverage.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema or annotations, a bare 'Update a datasource type property' is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, potential errors, prerequisites, or what updating implies for the datasource type. The schema helps but does not fill the behavioral gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all 7 parameters with descriptions like 'New name' and 'Is hidden', so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema already provides adequate meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('datasource type property'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_datasource_type_property or delete_datasource_type_property, though it does not elaborate on what 'property' entails beyond the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes update_datasource_type and update_datasource_type_property, but the description offers no differentiation or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states a generic mutation. It doesn't mention that the script_id is required, whether updates are partial or full, what happens if the script doesn't exist, or any validation steps (e.g., Python code validation). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it is arguably too terse given the tool's complexity, but conciseness is about eliminating fluff, which it does effectively. It loses a point for being overly minimal even though it's well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters. The description 'Update an existing script' is far too minimal for the agent to fully understand behavior, return values, or edge cases. It should at least mention the updatable fields (name, code, folder_id) and any implications like partial updates or required script_id.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to since each parameter has a clear description (e.g., 'New Python code').
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 'Update an existing script' clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (script), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_script_folder and update_datasource_type. However, it lacks specificity about which attributes are updatable (e.g., code, name, folder_id), though the schema partially covers this.
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 create_script, delete_script, or update_script_folder. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool's name without mentioning side effects, return values, permissions, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without any filler or redundant content.
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?
Although the tool is simple and the schema is complete, there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the operation returns, potential validation rules (e.g., uniqueness of folder name), or behavior when the parent_folder_id is invalid.
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 fully describes both parameters ('name' and 'parent_folder_id') with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action 'Create' and the resource 'script folder', distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_script_folder and delete_script_folder, as well as folder-creation tools for other entity types.
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 update_script_folder or list_script_folders. The description lacks any contextual cues about prerequisites, exclusions, or when this operation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description offers no behavioral context beyond the verb 'Delete'. With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden, yet it fails to disclose irreversible effects, permissions, or cascade behavior. This is a minimal and inadequate disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words or filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple, the description lacks essential context about the operation's effects, such as whether the deletion is permanent or if it impacts dependent resources. With no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a destructive operation, meriting a score of 2.
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 already documents property_id with 100% coverage, and the description adds no additional parameter information. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete' and the specific resource 'datasource type property', distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_datasource_type and delete_activator_type_property. This is a precise and unambiguous statement of the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when deletion is appropriate, whether it is permanent, or suggest alternatives like update_datasource_type_property for modifying properties. This complete absence of guidance earns a 2.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete' with no information about permanence, side effects, permissions, or dependent entities. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. However, it is extremely sparse and provides little information beyond the tool name, so it doesn't fully earn a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain return values, error conditions, or side effects. For a simple one-parameter delete, this might be acceptable, but given the lack of any supporting context, the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single parameter property_id with description 'Property ID' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an activator type property' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the operation. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_datasource_type_property by explicitly naming 'activator type property'.
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 vs alternatives like update_activator_type_property or delete_datasource_type_property. No prerequisites, conditions, or situational contexts are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Delete a datasource type,' which implies destructive behavior but does not explain consequences (e.g., permanence, cascading deletes, permission requirements). This is a significant gap for a delete operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that is easy to parse. It is sufficiently concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of omitting critical safety context, earning a 4 rather than 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple signature (one parameter) and no output schema, the description is structurally minimal. However, the lack of behavioral disclosure and usage guidance means the tool is not adequately contextualized for an agent, leaving it incomplete for a destructive operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully documents the single parameter type_id as 'Type ID' (100% coverage). The description does not add additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies; no enhancement or deficit is present.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a datasource type' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (datasource type), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_datasource_type_folder or delete_script_folder. The purpose is unambiguous and directly conveys the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool, any prerequisites, or alternative tools (e.g., search_datasource_types before deletion). It only states the operation, leaving the agent without context for when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Import', which implies a write operation, but does not explain whether it creates, updates, overwrites, or requires an existing type. The parameter 'update_existing' hints at behavior, but the description itself does not clarify consequences, permissions, or return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, efficiently conveying the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and object. However, it is under-specified for a tool with nested parameters, but conciseness itself is handled well.
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 (nested files object, update_existing flag, Git format context) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Git format' entails, how files are used, whether it creates or updates by default, or what the result of the import is.
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%; all three parameters (files, target_name, update_existing) already have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Import') on a specific resource ('datasource type') from a specific source ('Git format'). This distinguishes it from siblings like export_datasource_type, import_activator_type, and create/update_datasource_type, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 create_datasource_type, update_datasource_type, or import_activator_type. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or situations where this tool should be preferred over the create/update counterparts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that a method is created, without disclosing side effects, validation of Python code, required permissions, or success behavior. This is a minimal level of transparency for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is immediately clear and contains no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having a complete parameter schema, the description lacks broader context about what a datasource type method is, how it fits into the system, or what the tool's invocation entails. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal to guide an agent beyond the basic action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all five parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already offers, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Create' and clearly identifies the resource as a new method for a datasource type. It is distinct from sibling CRUD tools for methods (list, get, update, delete) by being the only creation operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 create_datasource_type or create_method_parameter. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and generic description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not mention that deletion is permanent, whether associated properties are cascaded, or if any permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the essential purpose immediately and 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?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description fails to explain important contextual details such as the consequences of deleting an activator type or its relationship to activator type properties. No output schema exists to compensate, leaving users without a full understanding of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the only parameter, type_id, is described as 'Type ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an activator type' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_activator_type, update_activator_type, and list_activator_types. It leaves no ambiguity about the operation performed.
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 whether to use it for removing an entire activator type rather than individual properties or folders. There is no mention of prerequisites or context in which deletion is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully communicate behavioral traits. It only states the tool exports 'properties and code,' but does not disclose the output format (file, JSON, download link), whether it is a read-only operation, permission requirements, or side effects. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity 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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the action ('Export an activator type') followed by a compact qualifier ('with properties and code'). Every word adds value, and there is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for a tool without an output schema. It fails to explain what the export produces (e.g., a serialized file, a code bundle), how the returned data should be interpreted, or how this export differs from a simple get. The optional parameters are not elaborated, and the relationship to import_activator_type is absent. Given the tool's moderate complexity, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (type_id and type_name), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description provides no additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not go beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Export an activator type' with the additional scope 'with properties and code.' The verb 'export' is specific and distinguishes this from retrieval tools like get_activator_type and from export tools for other entities (export_script, export_datasource_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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases (e.g., backup, migration), nor does it contrast with get_activator_type or explain how it relates to import_activator_type. The description simply states the action without contextualizing it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds 'with all properties and methods' but does not disclose the output format, delivery mechanism, or any side effects/permissions. For an export tool, this is a meaningful 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose without filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain what the export returns or how it is delivered. It does not, and with no annotations the overall context remains incomplete for an agent to know how to invoke and consume the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, though the schema itself is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Export' with resource 'datasource type' and clarifies scope ('all properties and methods'). This clearly distinguishes from sibling export tools for scripts and activator types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_datasource_type or import_datasource_type. The description only states the action, implying usage but providing no exclusion or alternative context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states the action without mentioning permanence, cascading effects, or required permissions—critical gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action without extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward one-parameter delete with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks disclosure of return values or side effects. However, the low complexity mitigates the impact of missing details.
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 fully documents the single parameter (parameter_id) with a description, so the tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics. Baseline of 3 applies due to 100% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a method parameter' clearly specifies the verb ('Delete') and the resource ('method parameter'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools that target other entity types (e.g., delete_datasource_type_method).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It only restates the action, leaving context to be inferred from the tool name and sibling family.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all properties' without explaining the return format, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects (though listing implies read-only). No details about ordering, filtering, pagination, or error behavior are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundant information. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently, earning a top score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the description need not be elaborate. However, it lacks any detail on what 'properties' means (e.g., names, metadata) or what the response structure looks like. It is minimally viable but leaves the agent slightly under-informed about expected outputs.
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 already documents the single parameter 'activator_type_id' as 'Activator type ID', and the description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond referencing the resource type. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the operation ('List all properties') and the specific resource ('an activator type'), making it distinct from sibling tools like create_activator_type_property or list_datasource_type_properties. The verb and object are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, complementary tools (e.g., get_activator_type), or scenarios where this would be the appropriate choice. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent without context for 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, permissions, pagination, sorting, or what happens if the datasource type does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and directly states the operation. Every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient but lacks any contextual details such as return format or relationship to other datasource type operations. It doesn't fully compensate for absent 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?
The schema already describes the single parameter mds_type_id as 'Datasource type ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'properties of a datasource type.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_datasource_types (which lists the types themselves) and list_datasource_type_methods.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with related tools such as get_datasource_type or list_datasource_types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only indicates a mutation operation, without detailing return values, error conditions, or validation rules like name uniqueness or parent folder requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence. It is concise and front-loaded with the key verb and object, containing no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create operation with two well-documented parameters, the definition is mostly complete. However, the lack of annotations and a description of the response or side effects prevents a perfect score.
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 already documents both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create') and the resource ('new datasource type folder'), distinguishing it from sibling tools for script folders and activator type folders. It is unambiguous and aligned with the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus create_script_folder or create_activator_type_folder, nor any prerequisites such as parent folder existence.
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 implies mutation ('Update') but does not explain prerequisites, authorization requirements, whether the update is partial, what happens to unspecified fields, or the return value. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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, concise sentence with no filler words. 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?
With six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-line description is insufficient. It does not cover expected return values, partial update behavior, or how code is validated or used. For a complex update tool, more detail is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only emphasizing that code can be updated via 'including its code'. It does not explain relationships between parameters or additional constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('an activator type'), making it distinct from sibling tools like update_activator_type_folder or create_activator_type. The parenthetical 'including its code' adds specificity, indicating that code is a focus of this update.
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 gives clear context that this tool is for updating an existing activator type, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives such as create_activator_type or update_activator_type_folder. No exclusions or alternative tool guidance are provided, so usage is implied rather than 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, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral aspects. It only states 'Update', identifying it as a mutation, but does not mention any side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to existing data when fields are omitted. This is a significant gap for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core operation without extraneous detail, earning a high score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the schema covering parameters, the overall tool context is thin. The description does not explain what a datasource type method is, how updates affect existing code or metadata, whether all fields are optional besides method_id, or what the result looks like. Given it is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves substantial gaps for an agent to safely invoke it 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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing 'including its code', which highlights the code parameter as a primary update target, but it does not add syntax, formatting, or relationship details beyond what the schema already conveys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'Update' and the resource 'datasource type method', with the parenthetical '(including its code)' distinguishing it from other update tools aimed at different entity types like datasource types or properties. This makes it immediately clear what the tool operates on and differentiates it from siblings.
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 by stating what the tool does—updating a datasource type method—but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent could infer that it is for modifying existing methods, but there is no direct context about when this is preferred over related operations like updating the parent datasource type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state what happens when validation fails (e.g., returns false, raises an exception, or provides an error message) or whether it has side effects. This is a significant gap for a validation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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, the description should at least clarify the return value or error behavior since there is no output schema. Without this, an agent cannot predict the tool's response, making it incomplete for reliable 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?
The input schema covers the only parameter 'code' with a description identical to the tool's purpose, providing 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as format requirements or size limits, but the schema is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Validate'), resource ('Python code'), and method ('using ast.parse()'). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on CRUD operations for scripts, datasource types, and activator types.
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 for checking Python syntax but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. No sibling tool performs validation, so the context is clear but not fully elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the purpose. It doesn't mention return format, pagination, authentication, or read-only nature, leaving the agent to infer these.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy or filler. It conveys the essential action in minimal words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-parameter list tool, the description is adequate but lacks details about the return value or any filtering behavior. Given no output schema, a bit more context on what is returned would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but the baseline for no params is 4, and there is nothing to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('activator types') with explicit scope ('all'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_activator_type_folders or get_activator_type by naming the exact 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_activator_types or get_activator_type. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that all datasource types are listed, which is accurate and implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose return structure, pagination, ordering, or any potential side effects. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name, though the behavior is simple and low-risk.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the key information, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition. It is an efficient and focused specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it communicates the core action and scope. However, it does not clarify the return format or explicitly distinguish from the search variant, so a complete understanding may require prior domain knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage and no parameter semantics are needed. The description does not need to explain anything about parameters, and the baseline for zero-param tools is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and the resource (datasource types), and the word 'all' specifies the scope, which helps distinguish it from search_datasource_types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools or mention potential output formats, so it is not as strong as the top-tier example.
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 instead of alternatives like search_datasource_types or list_datasource_type_folders. It does not mention filtering, use cases, or when to prefer another tool, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. 'List all' implies a read-only operation and the description is accurate, but it does not disclose return format, ordering, or any potential side effects. Minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and target clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple list operation, but it lacks context about what 'parameters' entails (e.g., names, types) and does not clarify whether this applies to datasource-type methods or activator-type methods. No output schema exists to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage with method_id described as 'Method ID'. The description's 'of a method' aligns with the parameter but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'all parameters of a method'. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools that create, update, or delete method parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. It simply states the operation without further guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds that the default search is by name, but it does not explain whether the search is a substring or regex match, how results are ordered, or whether pagination applies. The schema covers the case_sensitive default, but the description adds no safety or side-effect context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool, the description plus schema adequately covers the parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not state what a successful response contains (e.g., a list of activator types with metadata). It also lacks error handling or edge-case details, leaving some assumptions to the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described in the schema. The description merely restates the search_in default ('name only') that is already in the schema's enum description, adding no new meaning beyond that. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search activator types by name and/or code.' It uses a specific verb (search) and resource (activator types), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_activator_types and get_activator_type by specifying what fields can be searched.
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 through the search verb but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used for filtered searches as opposed to listing all activator types. The default search field is stated, but this is more parameter clarification than usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mostly paraphrases the input_type schema property and does not reveal side effects, prerequisites (e.g., existing method), or return behavior. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond what the input schema already documents.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste, front-loading the verb and object. It efficiently communicates the core distinction between input and output parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is straightforward, and the schema provides complete parameter details. The description covers the essential input/output behavior. It could mention prerequisites like the method_id needing to reference an existing method, but overall the combination of description and schema is sufficient for a create operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the input_type semantics already defined in the parameter description. The important value_type_id note is present in the schema, not the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates input or output parameters for a datasource type method, distinguishing the two parameter types. This specific verb-resource pairing separates it from sibling tools like create_datasource_type_method or create_datasource_type_property.
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 explains when to use input_type=true vs false, giving functional context for parameter creation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclude cases (e.g., use update_method_parameter for modifications), so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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 the output format but does not clarify whether the tool returns the files, creates them, or triggers a download. It also omits any side effects, permissions, or error behavior, leaving significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose and output. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema, and the description captures the core action and output format. However, it lacks details on the response structure (e.g., what the agent receives) and any prerequisites or assumptions, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning; it only reiterates the overall purpose. The schema already explains that script_name is an alternative to script_id, so the description provides no additional semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Export'), the resource ('a script from GIMS'), and the output format ('to Git format (meta.yaml + code.py)'). This distinguishes it from sibling export tools (e.g., export_datasource_type, export_activator_type) and from script retrieval tools like get_script.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context on when to use this tool: when you need to convert a GIMS script into Git format. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous, so it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals that the full response can be too large, which is a useful behavioral trait, and explains how to reduce it via flags. However, it does not describe the return format, error conditions, or confirm that this is a read-only operation. The name implies a safe get, but that is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core purpose; the second provides a useful tip. There is no redundant filler, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (a single get operation with three parameters), the description is adequately complete. All parameters are covered in the schema, and the usage tip addresses a common concern about response size. There is no output schema, but for a straightforward getter, the description does not need to detail return values. It lacks some context about what a datasource type is, but sibling tool names clarify the domain.
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 already documents all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining a concrete use case for the boolean flags: setting both to false yields basic type info and avoids overly large responses. This practical guidance goes beyond the schema's 'Include methods' and 'Include properties' descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a datasource type.' This identifies a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from list or create operations. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'list_datasource_types' but the verb 'get' implies retrieving a single item.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a practical usage hint: 'Use include_properties=false and include_methods=false to get only basic type info.' This is a guideline for parameter usage, not for tool selection. It implies the tool is for retrieving a single datasource type, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' which subtly implies read-only access, but it does not state whether this operation has side effects, what the return value looks like, or any other behavioral context. The sentence is largely a restatement of the tool's name and purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two short, purposeful sentences. The first states the core function, and the second gives usage context. There is no redundant or extraneous information, 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?
For a simple single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and usage. However, it does not explain what 'full code' includes or what the response format is. Given the simplicity, it is minimally complete but leaves some ambiguities about the returned data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% because the `method_id` parameter already has a description ('Method ID'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning about how to use the parameter or what it represents. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the full code of a datasource type method.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the sibling tool `get_datasource_type_method`, which would logically return metadata rather than code.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an explicit use case: 'Use this when you need to read or analyze the method code.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions explicitly. It is slightly less comprehensive than a fully explicit when/when-not comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clarifies the default search scope, which adds useful context, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose potential performance implications of regex search. The behavior is largely inferred from the tool name and schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 11 words, efficiently communicating the core functionality and default behavior. Every word earns its place, with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema or annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It covers the purpose and default, but lacks any indication of return values or search result behavior (e.g., pagination). The tool is simple enough that the description is adequate, but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's note about default search by name duplicates the schema's search_in parameter description, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'scripts', and clearly specifies the search scope ('by name and/or code content') and default behavior ('Default searches by name only'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_scripts and get_script by focusing on the searching capability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the default search scope, which hints at usage, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_scripts or get_script. The context for choosing this tool is implied but not clearly articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses one important behavioral trait: the property is accessed directly by label name (NOT through self). However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or return values, which are relevant for a create operation with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with two clauses, front-loading the core purpose and adding a key usage detail. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or irrelevant 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 the tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully contextual. It does not explain return values, required dependencies (e.g., activator_type_id, value_type_id), or what happens after creation. The schema covers parameter details, but the description lacks tool-level context for an agent to use it correctly in a workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the label is used directly in code, not through self, which clarifies the role of the label parameter. This adds value beyond the schema's description of label as 'variable name in code'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Create a new property for an activator type.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update/delete/list. The additional note about label access adds specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when creating a property) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The 'NOT through self' usage note provides some context, but no explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to use update/delete instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'all' folders and 'hierarchy paths,' which adds some behavioral context, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only status, permissions, or return format. For a simple list tool this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, front-loaded, and contains no redundant or filler words. It is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter list operation, the description fully conveys the purpose and result content (hierarchy paths). It doesn't mention return format or ordering, but these are not critical for such a straightforward tool. The lack of annotations and output schema is not a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The description adds no parameter semantics, but with no parameters this is a non-issue. Baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists 'all activator type folders' with 'hierarchy paths,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_script_folders and list_datasource_type_folders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_script_folders or list_datasource_type_folders. It simply states the operation without any contextual or exclusionary notes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'Compare' inherently suggests a non-mutating read operation, and the description adds the comparison key ('by updated_at'), which clarifies part of the behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention return format or error behavior, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence of 12 words. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'Compare', immediately conveys the resources involved, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool simplicity and full schema coverage make the description largely adequate. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not explain what the comparison returns (e.g., a diff, a boolean, or a report). While the core purpose is clear, this missing return value information prevents full completeness.
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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, achieving the baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining that the comparison is driven by the 'git_exported_at' timestamp ('by updated_at'), which clarifies the role of that parameter in the comparison context, going beyond the schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Compare' and clearly identifies both resources: a GIMS component and its Git version. The qualifier '(by updated_at)' adds a distinguishing detail not present in sibling tools, which are primarily CRUD operations. This makes the tool's purpose distinct and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when/when-not or alternative tools are mentioned. The intended usage is implied by the verb 'Compare', and the sibling list contains no similar comparison tool, so it is clear this is the tool for comparing versions. However, the description does not provide explicit guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful detail that the property is accessed via self.property_label, which indicates an important characteristic of the created entity. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, idempotency, or return behavior, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds a valuable usage note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal but sufficient for a basic create operation. The schema covers parameter details, and the description clarifies the main purpose. However, it lacks information about return values, prerequisites, or special constraints that would make it fully complete for an 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% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of self.property_label only restates what the schema already says about the label parameter, adding no new semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new property for a datasource type'), which is specific and unambiguous. It also adds a distinguishing detail about how the property is accessed in code, setting it apart from similar create tools for other entity types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for a datasource type' provides clear context for when this tool applies, differentiating it from sibling tools like create_activator_type_property. The additional note about self.property_label offers practical guidance on how the created property is used, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output is the 'full code' and implies a read-only operation through 'read or analyze', but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permissions, or response format. This is adequate but has 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 two sentences, directly states the purpose and usage, and contains no redundant filler. It is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('full code') and intended use. It lacks a bit of specificity about the exact output format, but is otherwise complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the only parameter (type_id) with a description 'Type ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add further parameter details, but since the schema already documents it, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the full code of an activator type', specifying the exact resource (activator type code) and the action (get). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_activator_type, which likely returns metadata, by focusing on the code.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a clear use case: 'Use this when you need to read or analyze the activator code.' This gives context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read operation ('get') and that the full code is returned, but does not disclose potential errors, authentication requirements, or side effects. For a simple getter, this is acceptable but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, the first stating the core functionality and the second giving the usage context. No redundant phrasing or filler, 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.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a single simple parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and when to use it. The return value is implied ('full code'), which satisfies the need without an output schema. It is sufficiently complete for the low complexity.
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 single parameter script_id described as 'Script ID'. The description adds 'by ID' which is redundant with the schema, providing no additional semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the full code of a script by ID', which is a specific verb (Get) and resource (script code) that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_script (which likely retrieves metadata) and other get_*_code tools for different entity types. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Includes explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when you need to read or analyze the script code.' This tells the agent when to invoke it, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, preventing a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the SSE streaming mechanism and the wait-for-marker/timeout behavior, which is useful. However, it omits details such as what happens on timeout, whether partial logs are returned, and any prerequisites beyond manual execution. This is moderate transparency but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, packed with key information: SSE stream, wait behavior, and usage context. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description correctly points to the schema for parameter details and gives enough context about the tool's operation (timeout and markers) for an agent to select and invoke it. Since there is no output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It is sufficiently complete for a log-collection tool, though it could mention error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters with meaningful explanations (e.g., timeout overrides GIMS_LOG_STREAM_TIMEOUT, filter_pattern applies after end marker check). The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get script execution log via SSE stream' and specifies the context 'after manual script execution in GIMS'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on execution log retrieval, which none of the siblings address.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this to collect script output after manual script execution in GIMS.' It also mentions waiting for end marker or timeout, giving behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly exclude other uses or mention alternatives, though none are apparent among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does add a meaningful behavioral detail: 'Validates Python syntax before import.' However, it does not disclose side effects such as overwriting behavior, failure semantics, or required permissions beyond what the schema parameters imply, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the primary action and source/destination, the second states a key behavioral guarantee. No redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema) and 100% schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete for an import action. It conveys the essential 'Git format' input and validation step, though it could elaborate on what happens on validation failure or how update_existing interacts. Still, it adds enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the 'Git format' and validation context, which is tangential to the parameters themselves. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool imports a script to GIMS from Git format, with a specific verb+resource+source/destination. It differentiates from alternatives like create_script (creation from scratch) and import_datasource_type/import_activator_type (different resource types) by naming the resource and format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: when you need to bring a script into GIMS from Git format. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the mention of 'Git format' and validation provides clear context for a specific use case, and sibling tool names naturally distinguish other import targets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that all folders are listed and that hierarchy paths are included, but it does not explicitly mention read-only nature, ordering, pagination, or the exact output structure beyond 'hierarchy paths'. The verb 'list' implies a non-mutating operation, providing baseline 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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, low-complexity list tool, the description adequately states scope and return content. The only minor gaps are lack of explicit output format for 'hierarchy paths' and no mention of read-only behavior, but these are not critical for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so no parameter explanations are needed. Schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; the description does not need to add parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('datasource type folders'), and adds 'with their hierarchy paths' to clarify output scope. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_datasource_types, list_script_folders, and list_activator_type_folders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The resource-specific naming implies usage for enumerating datasource type folders, and sibling context shows differentiation from other folder listings, but there is no direct statement of when to choose this over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It states 'without code', which is a key behavioral distinction, but it does not mention other potential behaviors such as output format, sorting, or permissions. The information is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that communicates the purpose and a key limitation in minimal words. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states the action, the scope, and the difference from the code-returning sibling. It could have mentioned whether the list includes method names only or also other metadata, but given the simplicity, it is sufficient.
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 already fully describes the only parameter mds_type_id with 'Datasource type ID'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying that the parameter identifies the datasource type whose methods are listed, so it does not exceed the schema coverage baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all methods of a datasource type, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from get_datasource_type_method by explicitly noting that this version omits code.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides guidance on when to use this tool versus get_datasource_type_method, explicitly directing users to the alternative for full code. However, it does not discuss other possible alternatives like listing properties or folders, so it is not fully comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation returns all script folders and includes hierarchy paths, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, response format, or any potential side effects, though 'list' implies a safe read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-parameter list tool, the description provides the core information needed: it lists all script folders and highlights the hierarchy paths in the output. It lacks details on ordering or filtering, but those are not critical for a basic listing operation, making it sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to elaborate. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds nothing needed since the schema is empty.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('script folders'), and adds meaningful scope ('all' and 'with their hierarchy paths'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_scripts or list_datasource_type_folders.
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 you need to list script folders), but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives. There is no exclusion or direct comparison with siblings, so it falls into 'implied usage' rather than explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'list' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety, pagination behavior, or what happens if folder_id is invalid. It adds minimal context beyond the bare statement of the operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return value (folder paths). It could mention filtering via folder_id, but the schema covers that. The low complexity means this is nearly complete.
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 already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter (folder_id) with a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond implying that all scripts are listed when no filter is applied, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all scripts with their folder paths', identifying the verb (List), resource (scripts), and scope (all), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_script_folders and get_script.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to list all scripts. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the simple nature of the tool and sibling context (e.g., search_scripts for filtering) makes usage implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds the useful default behavior ('Default searches by name only'), but does not disclose the return format, whether results are paginated, or the semantics of 'search' (substring/regex) beyond what the schema already states. It provides some context but leaves gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the important default. No filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool with 3 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient completeness. It communicates the core search capability and default. However, it could be slightly stronger by noting that it returns matching datasource types, but the verb 'search' implicitly covers this.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the default search scope ('Default searches by name only'), which directly explains the search_in parameter's behavior. This goes beyond the raw enum definition, justifying a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Search' with a clear resource 'datasource types' and specifies the search dimensions 'by name and/or method code'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_datasource_types and get_datasource_type, which serve different lookup purposes.
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 via the default behavior 'Default searches by name only', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_datasource_types or get_datasource_type. There is no direct comparison or exclusion, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that code is filtered by default, which is useful. However, it does not mention what 'metadata' includes, whether include_properties affects the response, or any permission requirements. This is partial transparency but leaves gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exactly two sentences, starts with the main purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple 2-parameter read tool, but the absence of an output schema places a burden on the description to clarify return content. Saying 'metadata' is vague; it does not specify what fields are returned or how include_properties affects the response. The code filtering note helps, but completeness is only average.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get activator type metadata') and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_activator_type_code by mentioning code filtering. This is a clear, unambiguous purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly directs users to use get_activator_type_code when they need code, providing a clear alternative. This effectively guides selection between the two similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that code is filtered out, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention permissions, read-only nature, error behavior, or return format beyond the high-level 'metadata and parameters.' This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the second sentence efficiently provides a critical exclusion without redundancy. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description states what it returns (metadata and parameters) and what it does not (code). It is largely complete for its simplicity, though it could explicitly mention that it is a read-only operation or list typical metadata fields. The explicit sibling pointer adds useful 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 covers 100% of the parameter description ('Method ID'), so the schema already provides complete parameter semantics. The description adds no extra detail about how to use or format method_id, warranting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get method metadata and parameters.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('method metadata and parameters'), directly distinguishing itself from the sibling tool get_datasource_type_method_code by noting that code is filtered out.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides an alternative: 'Code is filtered - use get_datasource_type_method_code to retrieve code.' This tells the user when not to use this tool (when code is needed) and directs them to the correct sibling, establishing clear usage context vs alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It discloses a key behavioral trait (code is filtered by default) which is useful, but does not mention response format, permissions, error conditions, or other side effects. The single behavioral note is helpful but the description could be richer.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by an important qualifying statement. No filler or redundant information, 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.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers core purpose and the key exception (code filtering) while pointing to the sibling for code. It lacks a bit of detail on what 'metadata' includes, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this tool complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with script_id described as 'Script ID'. The description only reaffirms 'by ID' without adding new details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get script metadata by ID' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_script_code by noting code is filtered by default. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly says 'use get_script_code to retrieve code,' naming an alternative and indicating when to use it. This provides direct guidance on choosing between related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'List all available property sections,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly say there are no side effects, require no special permissions, or describe the output format beyond implying section_name_id is available. It adds minimal behavioral context, so a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and followed by a concrete use case. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what it does and why you'd use it. However, it does not fully describe the output structure (e.g., all fields returned, whether it's an array), so it relies on the user to infer that the output contains section_name_id. Slight gap, but acceptable for a simple read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter coverage to worry about. The description adds semantic context by mentioning 'section_name_id' as an output value, but it does not need to explain parameter meanings since none exist. According to the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: "List all available property sections." It uses a specific verb (list) and a specific resource (property sections), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_script_folders or list_datasource_types. The addition of "Use this to get section_name_id when creating properties" explicitly pins its role in a workflow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a direct use case: "Use this to get section_name_id when creating properties." This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but given the tool's unique purpose among siblings, this is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states the tool lists 'all' value types, indicating exhaustive scope, and reveals that the output includes 'value_type_id,' which is the key behavioral detail. However, it does not describe the full response structure (e.g., whether names are included).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the action and scope, the second explains the practical use. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and the key return field (value_type_id). It could specify the exact response format, but the reference nature of the tool makes the current explanation sufficient.
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 schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage by definition, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that no filtering is possible by stating it lists 'all' value types, adding a small semantic cue beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the clear resource 'value types' and explicitly scopes it to 'properties and parameters.' It also states a concrete purpose: 'Use this to get value_type_id when creating properties,' which distinguishes it from sibling CRUD tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Use this to get value_type_id when creating properties.' It provides clear context for the lookup scenario, though it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools (likely because none are appropriate for this reference action).
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/gelarm/gims-automation-mcp-server'

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