universal-brute-workpack

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.9
Disambiguation5/5
All tools are clearly grouped by category (agent, audit, code, etc.) with distinct action verbs within each group. No two tools have overlapping purposes, and even the alias memory.recall is explicitly noted. An agent would easily distinguish them.
Naming Consistency5/5
Every tool follows a consistent <category>.<action> pattern using lowercase and dots. All actions are descriptive verbs, and no naming conventions are mixed. The pattern is predictable across the entire set.
Tool Count4/5
With 26 tools covering 10 categories, the set is comprehensive but slightly above the typical well-scoped range (3-15). However, each tool serves a clear purpose within its domain, and the count is justified for a 'universal' workpack.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers a broad range of operations (file I/O, code review, web search, auditing, etc.). Minor gaps exist, such as missing file deletion/creation and memory storage operations, but core workflows are well-represented and agents can work around the gaps.
Average 2.6/5 across 26 of 26 tools scored. Lowest: 1.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 19 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 24, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Business Source License 1.1.
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?
No annotations provided, and description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, directory creation, overwrite behavior, or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise but at the cost of critical missing information. While front-loaded, the content is insufficient to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool performs a write operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. Missing details on behavior, return value, and error cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description adds no information about path format, content encoding, or constraints beyond the basic schema types.
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?
Description states verb 'Write' and resource 'file', but lacks detail on whether it creates, overwrites, or appends. It distinguishes from siblings only minimally.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like file.copy or file.move. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no details on side effects, idempotency, required state (e.g., does runDir need to exist?), or what happens on conflict. The term 'host-mediated' is undefined.
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?
Very concise (one sentence) but omits essential information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. Missing required fields, examples, return behavior, and error cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and description does not explain any parameter's meaning or format. Agent must guess from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
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?
Description states 'Ingest one host-mediated worker report into an audit runDir,' which identifies the verb and resources but uses jargon ('host-mediated worker report') and does not distinguish from sibling tools like audit.collect or audit.prepare.
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 audit.collect or audit.run. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose key behavioral traits such as recursion behavior, output format, or whether it is a read-only operation. The agent must guess these details.
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?
At 3 words, the description is extremely concise but under-specified. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it less useful for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return value, recursion behavior, or any nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description implicitly ties the 'path' parameter to the directory to list, but schema coverage is 0%. No additional meaning is added beyond the schema (e.g., path format, allowed values, or behavior when missing).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List a directory' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (directory), but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like fs.glob or file.read, which might also list files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fs.glob for pattern matching). The description does not mention use cases 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 provided, so description must disclose behaviors. It fails to mention whether spawning is synchronous, failure modes, or side effects. Only states the mechanism.
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?
Single sentence is concise but omits essential detail. Not a model of conciseness as it sacrifices completeness.
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?
No output schema, no param descriptions, no annotations. Description fails to explain return values, behavior, or prerequisites for a tool that spawns agents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 3 parameters (model, prompt, system) with 0% coverage. Description adds no explanation of these parameters or their roles.
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 (spawn) and the resource (external agent) via a specific mechanism (configured sidecar adapter). It distinguishes from siblings like agent.pipeline.
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 context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agent.pipeline. No prerequisites or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'local', missing critical details like blocking nature, side effects on filesystem, security permissions needed, and limits. This is insufficient for a powerful shell execution tool.
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?
One sentence is very short, but for a tool with significant implications, it is under-specified. The definition lacks essential details, making it not 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?
Given no output schema, no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and minimal description, the tool definition is severely incomplete. An agent lacks information on return values, errors, security, and proper usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (cwd, command, timeoutMs). Without parameter semantics, the agent cannot correctly construct invocations.
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 'execute' and resource 'local shell command', distinguishing it as a command execution tool among siblings like agent.spawn. However, it is very brief and could be more specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agent.spawn for background processes or file.write for scripts. The description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and the description provides no behavioral details such as safety, authentication needs, error handling, or return value specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief, the description is under-specified and lacks necessary detail, making it insufficient rather than 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?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description does not explain what reading a file returns (e.g., content, stream) or any other critical details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'path' parameter, adding no meaning 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 'Read a file.' clearly specifies the verb (read) and resource (file), and distinguishes from sibling tools like file.write and file.copy.
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, no prerequisites, or context 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 fully disclose behavior. It hints at parallelism with 'local worker pool' but lacks details on permissions, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The behavioral model is incomplete.
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 a single sentence, which is front-loaded but too brief. It does not earn its place by providing sufficient detail; it sacrifices necessary information for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, 4 undocumented parameters, and a search tool with many siblings, the description is grossly incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, output format, usage context, and behavioral guarantees, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (root, pattern, maxFiles, maxResults). The agent has no clue what these parameters mean or how to use them, adding zero value 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 states 'Search file contents under a root', clearly indicating the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fs.glob (which searches file names) or file.read (which reads entire files), missing specificity about content searching.
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 mentions 'for large trees', implying optimization for large directory structures, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., file.read for small files, search.fetch for web). No when-not-to-use or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or any behavior beyond the high-level action. The term 'managed sidecar adapter' is not explained.
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, which is concise, but its brevity sacrifices informativeness. It could be restructured to front-load the purpose and add parameter context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, no schema description, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. An agent lacks essential information to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It fails to explain any of the 5 parameters (model, tasks, maxTasks, staggerMs, concurrency). The agent cannot understand parameter semantics from the description alone.
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 'Run' and the resource 'external multi-agent pipeline', and specifies the mechanism 'through the managed sidecar adapter'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'agent.spawn' which likely spawns an agent. However, it could be more explicit about what constitutes a 'multi-agent pipeline'.
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 'agent.spawn'. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, 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.
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 mentions collecting into a bundle and gate file but does not disclose side effects, permissions, safety profile, or whether it modifies the input. The behavioral traits are severely under-specified.
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, which is concise and avoids fluff. However, it is too minimal to be effective, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity. No structural elements like sections or lists are used.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, output, or relationship to other tools like audit.run or audit.ingest_report, leaving critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It does not mention any of the four parameters (runDir, maxFindings, failureThreshold, mainThreadSampleRate) or their roles, adding no semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Collect' and the resource 'existing audit runDir' into an 'EvidenceBundle and gate file', which gives a good sense of the tool's primary function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like audit.ingest_report or audit.run, and the term 'runDir' is not fully defined.
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, no prerequisites, and no context about the intended workflow among sibling audit tools. This leaves the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions creating a 'runDir' with artifacts, but does not state if the operation is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing directories), what permissions are required, or whether it modifies external state. The return value is also unspecified.
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 of 13 words, making it concise but lacking structure. It does not front-load critical information nor use bullet points or sections. While brevity is positive, it sacrifices clarity and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, input usage, output, or side effects, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the tool description provides no information about any parameter (model, tasks, runDir, dispatchMode, failureThreshold, maxFindingsPerTask). The agent has no guidance on how to set these parameters beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Prepare' and the resource 'audit runDir', listing specific artifacts (TaskCards, prompts, manifest, report dropbox). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like audit.run by implying a preparatory step. However, the term 'host-mediated' may be unclear, and the description lacks explicit distinction from other audit-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., audit.run, audit.collect). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or any conditions that would indicate appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'run', implying mutation but not confirming it. No details on side effects, permissions, errors, or state changes are given, leaving the agent uninformed about 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient, but it omits essential information that would be needed for the agent, making it 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?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is drastically incomplete. The agent lacks guidance on parameter semantics, pipeline behavior, and expected outcomes, making the tool effectively unusable without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any of the 9 parameters. Parameter names like 'model', 'tasks', 'runDir' are self-explanatory to some extent, but without any explanation of their roles or dependencies, the agent cannot use them correctly.
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 runs an audit pipeline involving TaskCard, runDir, collector, and EvidenceBundle, distinguishing it from sibling audit tools like collect or prepare which are more specific. However, it lacks specifics on what 'run' exactly produces.
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., audit.collect, audit.prepare) or when not to use it. The agent receives no context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning read-only nature, permissions, recursion behavior, or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity sacrifices essential detail. It is acceptably concise but lacks structure that would aid comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, or glob pattern details, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain the three parameters (root, pattern, maxResults). The term 'glob-like pattern' gives minimal hint, but semantics like default paths, pattern syntax, and result limits are absent.
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 'List files matching a glob-like pattern', identifying the tool's verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like fs.list or fs.grep, which are similarly file-related.
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 fs.list or fs.grep. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only, destructive potential, or required permissions. The alias nature implies it behaves identically to memory.search, but no details 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, which is good for conciseness. However, it is too minimal to provide value beyond identifying the tool as an alias. It could be considered under-specified rather than efficiently 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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. An agent cannot determine how to properly invoke this tool or what it returns. The alias declaration alone is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter schema has 0% coverage and the description adds absolutely no information about the five parameters. The agent has no semantic guidance for using parameters like root, topK, query, backend, or maxFiles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is an alias for memory.search, which indicates the purpose of memory recall/search. However, it does not explain what memory.search does, so the purpose is somewhat reliant on understanding the sibling tool.
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 mentions it is for Agent clients that use 'recall wording', but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus memory.search or other siblings. No when-not-to-use or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only mentions 'lightweight', implying speed or thoroughness, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error behavior, or return format. Essential behavioral context is missing.
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, making it concise. However, it is too brief and lacks structure; it does not include a parameter description, usage notes, or result explanation. It is concise but under-specified.
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 one parameter, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the check entails, what output to expect, or how to use the parameter. The agent needs more context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single parameter ('path') with no description and allows additional properties. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention or clarify the parameter's purpose, format, or constraints. The description adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('run') and the resource ('lightweight syntax/config check'). The verb 'run' and the term 'syntax/config check' provide a basic understanding, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like validate.diff or validate.load.
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. The description lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this check is appropriate, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as file reading, potential errors, or side effects. It only states the action and output type, which is insufficient for a tool that likely reads external resources.
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, which is concise but lacks structure. It includes the essential verb and target, but could benefit from additional detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or document loading behavior, which are essential for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter details in the description, the agent has no information about the 'path' parameter beyond its type. The description does not specify expected format, constraints, or examples, leaving the parameter effectively undocumented.
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 loads JSON or JS modules and returns a structured summary. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate.check or validate.diff, though it could be more explicit about the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions parallelism but lacks details on whether the tool is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has limitations. The output summaries are listed but not described.
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, which is concise but sacrifices necessary detail. It earns its place by stating the tool's purpose but could be expanded 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?
Without annotations, output schema, or parameter explanations, the description leaves significant gaps. The agent cannot infer inputs, exact outputs, or behavioral constraints, making it incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the parameters 'root' or 'maxFiles'. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which itself lacks 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 specifies the tool analyzes files for size, extension, line, TODO, and FIXME summaries, which is a clear verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like worker.diff and worker.status, though it does not specify file scope (e.g., local vs remote).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without any annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies files, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The phrase 'structured heuristic code review' is too vague for an agent to infer expected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at one sentence, but this brevity comes at the expense of necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core action, yet lacks supporting information that would justify its length.
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 the review process, output format, or limitations. It is insufficient for an agent to reliably use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter meanings. The three parameters (path, maxFiles, maxFindings) are left completely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess their purpose and 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 tool performs a 'structured heuristic code review' over a 'file or directory', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like code.patch and validate.check, which have different purposes.
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, context, or situations where this tool might be inappropriate.
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 but only states the basic action. It does not disclose overwrite behavior, recursion for directories, 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 wasted words. It is front-loaded but lacks necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter documentation, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand behavior, return format, or edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the 'source' and 'dest' parameters beyond their names. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool copies a file or directory, distinguishing it from siblings like file.move and file.read. However, it does not specify copy behavior like overwrite or recursion.
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 file.move for moving or file.write for creating new content. There are no exclusions or context cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and description does not disclose key behaviors like overwrite policy, permissions, or recursion; leaves agent uninformed.
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?
Single sentence is concise but too brief to be useful; sacrifices necessary detail 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?
No output schema or annotations, and description fails to specify behavior or return; incomplete for a 2-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description offers no explanation of dest or source parameters, leaving their format and semantics undefined.
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 moves a file or directory, distinguishing it from siblings like file.copy and file.write.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like file.copy or fs commands; lacks context for agent decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions multiple backends but does not explain default behavior, fallback logic, or response format. Critical details like destructive potential or auth needs are absent.
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. However, given the complexity, slightly more detail could be added without harming 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?
For a tool with multiple backends, 2 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output format, error handling, and parameter constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain parameters beyond their names. 'query' is implicit but 'maxResults' is not defined, nor is there guidance on how backends are selected or configured.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches the web and lists specific backends (Exa, Tavily, DuckDuckGo, HTTP fallback), differentiating it from sibling tools like search.fetch or memory.search. However, it does not explicitly contrast with these siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not specify context, prerequisites, or limitations such as rate limits or authentication requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions parallel execution and the criteria (sha256, size, existence), implying a read-only comparison. However, without annotations, there is no explicit statement about destructiveness, side effects, or performance characteristics, leaving some uncertainty.
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 conveys the core purpose with no superfluous words. It is optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the brief description leaves significant gaps: no explanation of return format, parameter usage, or how the tool differs from similar siblings like validate.diff. More context is needed for reliable agentic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has three parameters (left, right, maxFiles) with zero description coverage. The description does not explain these parameters or map them to the mentioned sha256/size/existence criteria, forcing an agent to guess their 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 it performs a diff of files/directories using sha256, size, and existence. The verb 'diff' and resource are specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like validate.diff, which may have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate.diff or file.read. An agent would need to infer usage context from the name and description 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?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the fallback search strategy but omits other behavioral traits such as read-only nature, network requirements, or error handling. The description is partially transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 13-word sentence, zero waste, and front-loads the key behavior. 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?
Given 5 undocumented parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a non-trivial fallback mechanism, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain input semantics or output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the 5 parameters (root, topK, query, backend, maxFiles), adding no value for parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'search' is clear, and the resource 'memory' is specified, though 'memory' could be more precisely defined. It distinguishes the fallback behavior from sibling tools like memory.recall, but does not explicitly differentiate.
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 a usage context (external service first, then local files fallback), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like memory.recall or search.web, nor 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only mentions fetching 'as text' but does not disclose important behaviors such as redirect handling, timeout limits, error responses, or whether the tool follows best practices like setting user-agent. Minimal 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise—one sentence that gets straight to the point. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail. Still, every word earns its place; no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's network I/O nature and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention failure modes, response handling, or any limitations. For a tool that fetches external resources, 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 schema has one parameter 'url' with 0% description coverage. The description adds the constraint that it must be an HTTP/HTTPS URL, which provides some additional meaning beyond the schema. However, no further details (e.g., query parameters, headers, or formatting) are given, so the addition is minimal.
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 (Fetch) and the resource (HTTP/HTTPS URL) and the output format (as text). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like search.web, which likely involves searching the web rather than fetching a specific URL.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. The description simply states what the tool does 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a syntax check but does not clarify what happens on failure (e.g., does it abort, rollback?), whether the operation is destructive, or any side effects. Lacks detail on error handling and 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 concise sentence, front-loading the verb and resource. However, it could be structured to briefly explain parameters. No wasted words, but could be more informative within the same length.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not cover return values, error cases, or how the syntax check integrates with replacements. An agent would lack key details for correct 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%, and the description does not explain parameters beyond hinting at oldText/newText. The expectedReplacements parameter is undefined, and path format is omitted. Does not compensate for missing 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 the tool applies exact text replacements and runs syntax checks for JS-like files. It uses a specific verb ('apply') and resource ('text replacements'), which distinguishes it from siblings like file.write (write entire files) and code.review (review code).
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 JS-like files but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., file.write or code.review). No when-not statements or alternative names are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It only discloses a precondition (git availability) but does not explain behavior when git is unavailable, side effects (none expected), or other traits like rate limits or auth. Minimal transparency beyond basic 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 sentence, highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the core purpose, but it could provide more context 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 no output schema and sparse annotations, the description leaves many unknowns: format of the diff, behavior without git, parameter usage details, and limitations. Inadequate for an agent to use reliably without assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The mention of 'cwd/path' hints at the two parameters but does not explain their exact meaning, whether they are optional, or the effect of additionalProperties: true. Lacks sufficient detail for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a git diff for a cwd/path when git is available. It uses specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource (git diff) and scope (cwd/path). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like validate.check or worker.diff by specifying git diff.
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 a git diff is needed and git is available, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like worker.diff or code.patch. No exclusion conditions or alternatives 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?
The description only states what the tool returns ('local workpack, worker-pool, and sidecar status') but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or response format. Without annotations, the description should provide more 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 sentence, extremely concise, and front-loaded with the purpose. No unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple status retrieval tool without parameters or output schema, but it lacks any additional context such as when to expect errors or the format of the return value. There is room to add more 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?
There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is effectively 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Return' and the specific resources: 'local workpack, worker-pool, and sidecar status'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'worker.analyze' and 'worker.diff' by specifying that it returns status rather than performing analysis or diff.
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 siblings or alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, contexts where it is appropriate, or situations to avoid.
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:

[![universal-brute-workpack MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/haoyun18881-beep/universal-brute-workpack/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/haoyun18881-beep/universal-brute-workpack)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![universal-brute-workpack MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/haoyun18881-beep/universal-brute-workpack/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/haoyun18881-beep/universal-brute-workpack)

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/haoyun18881-beep/universal-brute-workpack'

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