Modal MCP

by george-bobby

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting a specific resource and action. The log-related tools are differentiated by scope (app vs container vs search) and the volume tools are separated by operation (copy, get, put, remove, list). No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools follow the verb_noun pattern with underscores, but there is a minor inconsistency: deletion uses both 'delete' (for secrets and volumes) and 'remove' (for volume files). Additionally, 'copy_modal_volume_files' is plural while others are singular. Overall, the naming is very consistent.
Tool Count4/5
26 tools is on the higher side but appropriate for the comprehensive coverage of Modal's platform (apps, containers, secrets, volumes, environments, logs). Each tool addresses a distinct need, so the count is justified and not excessive.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the major CRUD and lifecycle operations for apps, containers, secrets, and volumes. Minor gaps exist: there is no dedicated secret update tool (though create with force can override) and no tool to get a specific secret's metadata beyond name and timestamp. Overall, the surface is quite complete.
Average 4.1/5 across 26 of 26 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 12 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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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.
View related servers

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist; the description carries full burden but only says 'Delete a named Modal secret'. It does not disclose consequences (e.g., irreversibility), required permissions, or side effects. A deletion tool should explicitly state whether the operation is permanent or reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise with clear sections (action, Args, Returns). No fluff, but the format is straightforward. Could be slightly more structured but achieves brevity effectively.
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 deletion tool with 2 params and an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks behavioral details like idempotency, error handling, or permission requirements. It covers the basics but misses context needed for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides minimal parameter descriptions: 'Name of the secret to delete' for secret_name and 'Optional Modal environment to target' for env. This adds little beyond schema property names; no info on constraints, format, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a named Modal secret' with a specific verb and resource. It includes the CLI command 'modal secret delete' for reference and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_modal_secret or list_modal_secrets, which handle other operations on secrets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to delete vs. create or list secrets). The description only states the action without context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it renames and returns a dict, but omits important details like whether it is destructive, if volumes must be unmounted, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Structured with Args and Returns sections, and only three lines of content. No extraneous text. Could be slightly more efficient without the 'Args:' header, but overall concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters and no output schema shown, the description covers inputs and output type. Missing behavioral context (e.g., atomicity, impact on mounts) and error handling, but adequate for a simple rename.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates minimally by explaining each parameter (old_name as current name, new_name as new name, env as optional target). However, it lacks constraints like naming rules or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Rename a Modal volume' with the specific verb 'rename' and resource 'Modal volume'. The sibling tools list confirms this is unique among volume 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating or deleting volumes. Missing context such as prerequisites or when renaming is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the volume is 'persistent' and returns a dictionary. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, error conditions, or permissions needed for a creation 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 very concise with a clear front-loaded purpose statement and brief arg explanations. The returns section is vague but acceptable given the output schema exists. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks completeness for a creation tool. It does not address existence checks, idempotency, or error scenarios. With no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more behavioral and context details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'Name for the new volume' and 'Optional Modal environment'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a named, persistent Modal volume' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_modal_volume or create_modal_secret by focusing on volume creation.
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 basic parameter explanations but no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions for use. It does not help the agent decide between this and other 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens if the volume does not exist. It only states it returns parsed JSON, which is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a one-line purpose sentence followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It front-loads the action and uses plain language. Slight improvement could be merging the purpose with the argument descriptions into prose, but it remains clear and efficient.
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 (2 parameters, no nested objects, and an output schema), the description adequately covers inputs and outputs. However, it does not mention that the volume must exist or handle potential errors. Overall, it is reasonably complete for a straightforward list 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 0% parameter description coverage, but the description adds meaning: 'Name of the Modal volume to list contents from' and 'Path within the volume to list contents from. Defaults to root ("/")'. This clarifies the role of each parameter and the path default, though it could specify path format (e.g., absolute vs relative).
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 'List files and directories in a Modal volume.' This is a specific verb (list) and resource (files and directories in a Modal volume). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'list_modal_volumes' (which lists volumes) and 'get_modal_volume_file' (which gets a specific file).
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. There is no mention of when not to use it or explicit context. While the sibling list includes related volume operations, no differentiation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that it can copy one or multiple files to a directory, but it does not specify whether files are overwritten, what happens with non-existent sources, or any side effects. The return value description is minimal ('a dictionary'). Critical behavioral details are missing.
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 structured with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. It is concise but covers the core operation. However, the Returns section is somewhat vague.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description need not fully explain return values. However, it still lacks important behavioral context like error handling, permissions, and overwrite behavior. For a copy operation, this is a moderate gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description effectively compensates by explaining the volume_name parameter and the meaning of the paths array (last is destination, others are sources). It also provides an example, which adds clarity beyond the raw 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 action ('Copy files within a Modal volume') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like put_modal_volume_file (upload) and remove_modal_volume_file (delete). The verb 'copy' and resource 'Modal volume files' 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the argument structure (last path is destination, others are sources) but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as put_modal_volume_file or get_modal_volume_file. Usage context is implied but not 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions overwriting behavior with force and the stdout option for local_destination, but it does not disclose whether directories are downloaded recursively, required permissions, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured as a docstring with an Args section, making it easy to parse. It is slightly verbose but each line provides value. It could be more concise by condensing the parameter explanations, but it remains efficient overall.
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 has 4 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists. The description covers all parameters and indicates a return dictionary. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details (like recursive download support), leaving gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description adds meaning for each parameter: volume_name and remote_path are described, local_destination includes default and special '-' usage, and force explains overwrite behavior. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 'Download files from a Modal volume.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like put_modal_volume_file (upload) and copy_modal_volume_files (copy within volumes).
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 basic usage context by listing the arguments and their purposes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to use get vs copy) or when not to use it. The guidance is implied but not explicit, earning a score of 3.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only list operation by describing it as listing running containers, but does not explicitly state it has no side effects or note any behavioral traits beyond the obvious.
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 concise with three clear sections: what the tool does, parameters, and return value. Every sentence is necessary and adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 2 optional parameters and an output schema noted, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality. It explains the return format and container ID pattern. Minor omission: no mention of pagination or limits for large result sets.
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 description adds meaningful context to both parameters beyond the schema's titles. It explains the purpose of app_id (filter by app) and env (target environment). Given 0% schema description coverage, this provides essential clarity.
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 currently running Modal containers, using the verb 'list' and specifying the resource 'Modal containers'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_modal_apps and list_modal_environments by targeting containers specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when or when not to use this tool. While optional args like app_id and env are described, there is no mention of alternatives or conditions that would make another tool more suitable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Describes parameters but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or limitations beyond basic rollback operation. For a mutation tool, more transparency is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise, front-loaded with main action, parameter descriptions, and return type. No unnecessary 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?
Covers all parameters and return type. Lacks behavioral context (e.g., prerequisites, idempotency), but overall sufficient for a simple 3-parameter tool with output schema.
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?
Adds significant value beyond schema by explaining default behavior for version and referencing an auxiliary tool. With 0% schema coverage, description compensates well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Roll a Modal app back to a previous deployment version' with the command name and distinguishes it from siblings like deploy, run, stop.
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?
Suggests using get_modal_app_history to list versions, providing helpful context. However, does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools for different actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses 'Permanently stop' and 'terminate its running containers', but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or reversibility.
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?
No wasted words. One sentence for purpose, then clear Args and Returns sections. Efficient 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?
Covers main behavior and return type. Could mention if app must be running or if multiple calls are safe, but sufficient for a simple stop tool with output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning: app_identifier includes examples of name or ID; env is explained as optional Modal environment. Fully compensates for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Permanently stop a Modal app' and specifies the resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'stop_modal_container' by focusing on the app level.
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 use when you want to stop an app, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among siblings like rollback_modal_app or deploy_modal_app.
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 only says it returns a parsed JSON dictionary of deployment history. It doesn't disclose rate limits, permissions, or error handling, but adequately describes the basic 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 extremely concise, front-loading the purpose, using structured Args/Returns sections, with no extraneous 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?
With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the essential input parameters and return type, though it omits edge cases or error scenarios, which is acceptable for a simple read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains that app_identifier is an app name or ID and env is an optional environment target, adding meaning beyond the schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it shows deployment history for a Modal app, specifying the CLI equivalent and distinguishing from sibling rollback_modal_app by noting its utility for finding a rollback version.
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 explicitly mentions the tool is useful for finding a version to pass to rollback_modal_app, providing clear context for when to use it, though it lacks when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs two commands and returns a dictionary with the active profile name and list of profiles. However, it does not mention whether authentication is required, any side effects, or rate limits. For a read-only info 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 two sentences with a return format line, totaling about 50 words. It efficiently states the purpose, usage context, and return type without 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?
Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description explains the return format (dictionary with active profile name and list). It is complete for a simple info tool, though the output schema could be more detailed.
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?
There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, so the baseline score of 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 it 'shows the active Modal profile and all configured profiles', specifying the verb 'show' and the resource. It differentiates from sibling tools that deal with apps, secrets, volumes, etc., as profile management is unique.
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 advises using the tool to 'confirm which workspace/account the server is authenticated as before running account-scoped operations', providing clear context for when to invoke it. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the use case is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Explicitly notes that secret values are never exposed and only names/timestamps are returned, which is key behavioral 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?
Extremely concise: three sentences that front-load the CLI equivalent and clearly state the output. 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 list tool with one optional parameter and output schema present, the description covers the key behaviors and return structure. Could mention pagination or limits, but overall 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. Mentions the `env` parameter as 'Optional Modal environment to target', adding some meaning but lacking details like valid values or default behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it lists published Modal secrets, equivalent to `modal secret list`, and specifies that only names and timestamps are returned, not secret values. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_modal_secret and delete_modal_secret.
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?
States listing published Modal secrets, which is clear. No explicit when-not or alternatives mentioned, but sibling tools provide context. Lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus other secret tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses it uses the CLI and returns parsed JSON output. No annotations provided, but the tool is a read-only list operation with no parameters, so behavioral expectations are clear enough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. No extra 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 parameterless list tool with an output schema and sibling tools covering related operations, the description is sufficient. It mentions the output format, though it could hint at potential empty results.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no further parameter detail but does not need to, earning the 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 it lists all Modal volumes using the Modal CLI. It distinguishes from sibling tools like copy, create, delete, rename, and other list operations such as list_modal_apps or list_modal_secrets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_modal_volume_contents. Usage can be inferred but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that secret values are redacted from the returned 'command' field and that force overwrites existing secrets. However, it does not discuss idempotency, authorization requirements, or consequences of non-force creation when secret exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Each sentence adds value, but it is slightly lengthy. It could be more concise without losing clarity, but it remains readable and informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters (1 required) and an output schema hinted in the description (returns dictionary with redacted values), the description covers all aspects: creation methods, parameter explanations, return format, and redaction behavior. No gaps remain for a typical creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 6 parameters with clear explanations: secret_name (required), key_values (mapping), from_dotenv/from_json (file paths), force (overwrite flag), env (optional environment). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal type/required info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates a Modal secret, specifies multiple input methods (inline, .env, JSON), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_modal_secrets and delete_modal_secret. The verb 'create' and resource 'secret' are explicit.
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 explains how to provide key-value pairs via three methods (inline, .env, JSON) and mentions the --force flag for overwriting. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but usage context is clear. No alternatives or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly discloses the destructive, irreversible nature of the tool. While it does not mention authentication or error handling, it sufficiently warns about data loss. Without annotations, it carries the full burden and does so effectively.
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 concise, using a single sentence for the core action, followed by a crucial irreversibility warning and sibling reference. The Args and Returns sections are minimal but appropriate. No wasted text.
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 low complexity, the description covers the essential purpose, usage, and behavioral aspects. The output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. Minor gaps: no mention of prerequisites or error scenarios, but sufficient for a simple delete operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only restates parameter names with minimal context (e.g., 'Name of the volume to delete'). No additional constraints, examples, or hints are provided.
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 a named Modal volume') and resource, explicitly mentioning it deletes ALL data. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'remove_modal_volume_file' which targets individual files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool (deleting a whole volume) and when not to (for individual files, use remove_modal_volume_file), providing clear decision guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that endpoints persist and are live, the directory must use uv and have modal, and returns a dictionary with URLs. It lacks details on failure modes or idempotency, but covers key behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a paragraph followed by an args list. It is front-loaded with the main action. The list is clear, though slightly verbose. Could trim 'Args:' and 'Returns:' but still efficient.
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 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is thorough. It covers parameters, return value, and persistence. Minor gap: not contrasting with run_modal_app for temporary runs. Otherwise, complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must fully explain parameters. It does: absolute_path_to_app (absolute path, with uv/modal requirement), env, name, tag, strategy (with values), stream_logs. It maps to CLI flags, adding functional meaning beyond just names.
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 'Deploy a Modal application' and equates it to 'modal deploy'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_modal_app by emphasizing persistence of web endpoints, making its unique purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use this tool (to deploy an app so it persists) and notes prerequisites (uv, modal installed). It could explicitly mention not to use for temporary runs (use run_modal_app instead), but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains that the command is executed, output is captured, and a timeout applies with a truncated flag. However, it does not mention error handling, state side effects, or prerequisites like the container must be running.
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 concise with a clear structure: one-line summary, parameter details with examples, and return value description. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 simple parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior (execution, output, timeout) and return format. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema), so the description fully compensates. It explains container_id's source, gives examples for command format, and states the default for timeout_seconds. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action: 'Execute a command inside a running Modal container', with a reference to the underlying CLI command. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_modal_containers or stop_modal_container by specifying it runs a command inside a container.
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?
Description specifies when to use (executing commands) and links container_id to list_modal_containers. It does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives like getting logs, but the purpose is clear enough for appropriate selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature (deleting files/directories) and the requirement for recursive for directories. However, it lacks details on success/failure behavior, error messages, permissions required, or idempotency, which would be beneficial for an agent.
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 concise, starting with the tool's purpose in one sentence, followed by parameter explanations and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple operation (delete file/directory), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters with constraints, and return value. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return format. The description is 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.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter beyond the schema: volume_name ('Name of the Modal volume to delete from'), remote_path ('Path to the file or directory to delete'), and recursive ('If True, delete directories recursively. Required for deleting directories.'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a file or directory from a Modal volume.' The verb 'delete' combined with the resource 'Modal volume' makes the tool's purpose unambiguous, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like copy_modal_volume_files or put_modal_volume_file.
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 the recursive parameter, stating it is 'Required for deleting directories.' This helps the agent decide when to set it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like copy_modal_volume_files or put_modal_volume_file, which would improve decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it sends SIGINT and how in-flight inputs are handled. Lacks auth or prerequisite info, but for a stop tool this is sufficient.
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?
Three succinct sentences plus an args list. No wasted words; front-loaded with the main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, effect, parameter, and return type. Could add error handling or status when already stopped, but tools with output schema are adequately described.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining container_id: provides example format and source (from list_modal_containers), adding value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Terminate a running Modal container' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like stop_modal_app by focusing on containers.
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?
Describes the effect (SIGINT, cancellation of in-flight inputs) and implies a graceful stop use case. No explicit alternatives or when-not, but the behavior description provides adequate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that follow=True causes live-streaming until container stop or timeout, and that the response includes a 'truncated' flag. Missing auth/rate limits, but acceptable for a log 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 well-structured with an Args section and a Returns section. It is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers functionality well. It explains all parameters and the return structure. Minor omissions like error handling or pagination prevent a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides extensive explanations for all 8 parameters, including formats for since/until, example for container_id, and defaults. This fully compensates for the schema gap.
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 'Fetch or stream logs for a specific Modal container', identifies the resource as container logs, and includes an example container ID format. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_modal_app_logs' and 'search_modal_logs' by specifying 'container'.
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 explains that container_id comes from 'list_modal_containers' and details each parameter's purpose and defaults. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description adequately conveys it is a read-only listing operation returning parsed JSON. It references the CLI command to aid understanding, though it does not detail error handling or authentication 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 concise with three sentences, each adding value: purpose, context for usage, and return format. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and an output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what the tool does, how results are used, and what is returned. It is complete for a simple listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no parameter info but also does not need to.
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 environments in the current Modal workspace using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('environments'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on apps, secrets, volumes, etc.
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 notes that the returned names are valid 'env' arguments for other tools, guiding the agent to use this as a prerequisite. It implies when to use (before other environment-scoped tools) but does not explicitly state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the force parameter behavior, default remote path, and directory treatment when path ends with '/'. However, it omits authorization needs, rate limits, and error handling (e.g., behavior when force is false and file exists). Still decent coverage for a file 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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, followed by individual parameter explanations in bullet style, and a returns section. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 4 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?
Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers parameters thoroughly but lacks details on return values (just says 'dictionary containing result'), potential size limits, and network behavior. It is mostly complete but could mention upload size constraints or confirmation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must define all parameters. It does: volume_name, local_path, remote_path (with default and directory behavior), and force (with default and effect). It adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining the remote_path directory treatment and the overwrite logic.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Upload a file or directory to a Modal volume' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like copy_modal_volume_files (copy within volumes) and remove_modal_volume_file (delete). 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?
The description does not explicitly mention when or when not to use this tool, or suggest alternatives. However, the purpose is distinct enough from siblings (e.g., upload vs copy vs remove), so usage context is implied. It could be improved by stating prerequisites (e.g., volume must exist) but is still clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It describes the follow behavior, timeout snapshot, and return value truncated flag. However, it could be more explicit about read-only nature and potential rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a concise summary followed by a clear parameter list and return explanation. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers all aspects: parameter usage, default behavior, live-streaming, time range formatting, filtering, and return format with truncated flag. It is complete for the task.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description's docstring explains every parameter in detail (format, defaults, examples). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's property names.
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 'Fetch logs for a Modal app by name or app ID' and references the CLI command. It distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., get_modal_container_logs) by focusing on app logs.
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 explains default behavior (recent entries and exits), when to use follow=True (live-stream), and suggests list_modal_apps to discover names. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like search_modal_logs, but the context 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 provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool lists deployed/running or recently stopped apps, and returns a parsed JSON list. No side effects or limitations mentioned, but the basic behavior is clear.
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 concise: one sentence for purpose, one for usage hint, followed by clearly separated Args and Returns sections. No superfluous text, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (context indicates true), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, parameter details, and return format. No obvious gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains the 'env' parameter: it's optional, targets a Modal environment, and defaults to the profile's default or MODAL_ENVIRONMENT variable. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List'), resource ('Modal apps'), and scope ('currently deployed/running or recently stopped'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on secrets, volumes, containers, etc.
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 mentions the tool is 'useful for discovering the app name or ID to pass to other app tools', providing context. It does not state when not to use or explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list implies differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: single execution, log streaming, detach persistence, timeout with truncated output, and return format. It covers key traits beyond schema defaults.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear opening line, sibling distinction, and bulleted Args/Returns. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the most critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, parameter details, and return values. It includes important context like 'uv' requirement and detach behavior, making it complete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: absolute_path_to_app (path and environment requirements), function_name (optionality with default logic), env (optional environment), detach (behavior and default), timeout_seconds (purpose and default). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs a Modal function or local entrypoint, and explicitly distinguishes it from deploy by noting it executes once and streams logs. It uses specific verb+resource and differentiates 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says to use this tool for testing on Modal compute and contrasts it with deploy. While it gives clear context, it could be stronger by explicitly stating when not to use or mentioning alternatives, but it is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: logs are fetched once and grepped locally, defaults for parameters (e.g., last 1000 entries if no since/tail), timeout, output structure with match_count, matches, and returned. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with a concise introductory paragraph, bulleted 'Args:' section, and 'Returns:' section. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose and key differentiator.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, 2 required) and lack of annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. Covers all parameters, behavioral nuances, and return format, and distinguishes from related tools. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes a detailed 'Args:' section explaining every parameter, their types, allowed values (e.g., identifier can be app name/ID or container ID), examples, and defaults. Adds significant 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?
Clearly states the tool searches logs for a pattern and returns matches with surrounding context. Distinguishes from sibling log tools by contrasting with their 'search' argument, which only returns matching lines.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use (finding errors, tracebacks, request IDs) and contrasts with alternatives (the 'search' argument on other log tools). Provides examples of useful patterns and explains the local grep behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/george-bobby/mcp-modal'

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