kitcommerce-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool is clearly scoped to a specific resource and action (e.g., product, order, coupon). There is no overlap between list/get/create/update/delete operations across different resource types, making it easy for an agent to select the right tool.
Naming Consistency5/5All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., list_products, create_order, update_inventory). The one bulk operation (bulk_update_product_status) still fits the same convention.
Tool Count4/530 tools is slightly on the high side, but each tool serves a meaningful purpose within the e-commerce admin domain. The breadth is justified by covering multiple resources (products, categories, collections, coupons, orders, inventory, customers, dashboard).
Completeness4/5The tool surface provides full CRUD for most master data and appropriate partial operations for transactional data (orders, inventory, customers) where creation is not an admin responsibility. Minor gaps like missing order-level item management or customer updates are acceptable for the domain.
Average 3.5/5 across 30 of 30 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit 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 ISC License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the presence of pagination, search, and filters, but gives no details on default behavior, response structure, or edge cases. It does not state that the operation is read-only, although 'List' implies it, and it repeats capabilities already evident from the schema rather than adding new information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundancy. Every word adds meaning: it names the resource, the action, and the key capabilities. It is front-loaded and easily parseable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves gaps around expected response format, default pagination values, and how filters interact with search. While the schema documents the parameters well, the description itself does not fully compensate for the missing behavioral and response context, making the tool partially unspecified for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so all six parameters are already documented with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional syntax, constraints, or clarifications beyond grouping them into pagination, search, and filters, which is already apparent from the schema. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List categories' with capabilities like pagination, search, and filters. While the resource and verb are unambiguous, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling list tools other than by resource name, so it falls just short of a top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_category should be used for a single category, nor does it exclude scenarios where another list tool (e.g., list_products) would be more appropriate. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' language.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List orders' and does not state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits or side effects. The absence of such details leaves the agent without critical safety information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence, 'List orders with pagination, search and filters.' It is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It does not, however, include any additional useful structure or context, but it is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomprehensive for a tool with 6 parameters, a nested filters object, and no output schema or annotations. It fails to mention how pagination behaves (e.g., default page size), what 'filters' entails (pass-through verbatim), or any return value details. The agent would need to rely entirely on the schema, which is a significant gap for operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning every parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema provides; it merely summarizes pagination, search, and filters at a high level. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists orders, which is a specific verb+resource. It mentions pagination, search, and filters, providing a basic scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list_products or list_customers beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention using get_order for a single order or clarify that this is the appropriate tool for bulk listing. The description is purely declarative with no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions pagination, search, and filters without stating that this is a read-only operation, default page size, ordering, or any auth/rate-limit implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It briefly covers the key capabilities, though it could be structured as a short list to improve scannability. Still, it is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has six optional parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain the return shape, defaults, and edge cases. It does not mention what a successful response looks like, how many items are returned per page by default, or how the 'filters' parameter interacts with other parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description's mention of pagination, search, and filters adds some context but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('inventory'), clearly indicating this is a collection-level listing operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_inventory by implying a pageable, searchable, filterable view, and from update_inventory as non-mutating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. Sibling tools include get_inventory for fetching a single inventory item, but the description does not state that this tool is for browsing multiple records, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing whether deletion is permanent, cascading, or conditional. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly conveys the tool's action and target, making it appropriately concise for the simple operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks critical context such as irreversibility, potential cascade effects, permission requirements, or failure conditions. This makes it incomplete for reliable agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter, which already describes 'The resource id'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond confirming deletion by id, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a category by id' uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('category'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_product and delete_collection. It unambiguously states the action and target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 mention of side effects or conditions. The usage context is only implied by the purpose itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention error handling, return format, authentication requirements, or behavior for invalid ids. The brief statement only conveys the basic action without additional transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could potentially include more context without becoming verbose. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity of a simple get-by-id operation and full parameter schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details about the return value, error cases, or edge behavior, making it minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides a description for the 'id' parameter ('The resource id'), yielding 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a single category by id' clearly states the verb (get), resource (category), and scope (single by id), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_categories. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision-making context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the bare action without indicating whether deletion is permanent, whether associated data is affected, or what error responses occur. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundancy or extraneous content. It earns every word.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the core action. However, with no annotations, the lack of behavioral caveats (e.g., irreversibility, side effects) leaves it somewhat incomplete, though sufficient for a basic delete operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the 'id' parameter with a description ('The resource id'), and the description adds no extra semantic value beyond echoing 'by id'. The schema covers parameter meaning adequately, so the description is not required to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (collection) with the required identifier. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools by naming the collection resource specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_collection or get_collection. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or mention of alternative tools for similar operations.
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, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention error handling, auth requirements, return format, or any caveats, leaving the agent without essential context for a safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, and every word is necessary. It is an exemplar of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers the core action and parameter. However, it lacks any mention of return value, error behavior, or edge cases, which would be expected given the absence of an output schema and annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage with 'The resource id', so the parameter semantics are fully captured in structured data. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'coupon', and the scope 'single ... by id', which distinguishes it from siblings like list_coupons and get_product. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_coupons or get_product. There are no exclusions, 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a new collection' and lists fields, but does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what the API returns. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence plus a short list, front-loaded with the verb 'Create.' Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the schema covers parameter shape well, the description does not explain the return value or any behavioral constraints (e.g., uniqueness of slug, required permissions). For a create tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the outcome.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes the 'data' parameter thoroughly, including common fields and a pointer to get_collection for the full shape. The tool description merely repeats the same common fields, adding no extra meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new collection.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_collection and delete_collection. The mention of common fields also clarifies 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when creating a new collection, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like update_collection or get_collection. No exclusions or alternative references 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?
There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new coupon,' which is the basic action, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, whether duplicate codes are rejected, required permissions, or error behavior. This is minimal and insufficient for a mutation tool without annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and then lists the common fields compactly. There is no filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a nested object parameter and no output schema. The description lacks important contextual details such as required fields (the schema only requires the data object, not specific properties), return values, error conditions, or uniqueness constraints on the coupon code. It points to get_coupon for the full shape, which is helpful, but it does not provide enough context for reliable invocation, especially for an agent that may not know which fields are mandatory.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter 'data' with a detailed description including common fields and a pointer to get_coupon for the full shape. The tool description repeats the same field list without adding new semantics beyond what the schema offers. Baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description does not elevate it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new coupon.' It also lists common fields including the type enum (percentage|fixed), which further clarifies its scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_coupon, delete_coupon, get_coupon, and list_coupons.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied by the verb 'Create' – it is used to create a new coupon. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as checking for existing coupons with get_coupon first, or using update_coupon for existing coupons. No exclusions or conditions are provided, making it only implied 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action and does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, idempotent, cascading, or requires special permissions. The schema adds no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter. It is front-loaded, contains no unnecessary words, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the success response, whether deletion is permanent, or any side effects. More detail is needed to fully guide the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% because the only parameter 'id' has a description ('The resource id'). The description's 'by id' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a coupon by id' clearly states the action (delete), the resource (coupon), and the method (by id). This differentiates it from sibling delete tools by specifying the exact resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when you want to delete a coupon, but it does not provide explicit context on when to use it versus alternatives like update_coupon or deactivation, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention key behaviors like default pagination values, how filters are applied, whether the 'filters' object is passed through verbatim, or any limits or edge cases. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema or safety annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently states the core purpose without filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 6 parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not compensate for the missing annotation and output schema by explaining return values, default behavior, or the semantics of the 'filters' pass-through. This leaves the definition incomplete for a tool of moderate complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of pagination, search, and filters adds a high-level grouping but no additional detail beyond what the schema already states. The schema does the heavy lifting here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'store customers', while mentioning pagination, search, and filters. This distinguishes it from singular access tools like get_customer and other list tools for different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a list operation, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_customer for a single customer. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative scenarios are mentioned, leaving usage to be inferred from the tool name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'partial update,' which is a useful but minimal trait. It does not disclose whether the tool returns the updated coupon, requires specific permissions, handles invalid IDs, or has side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that states the purpose and key behavior with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easily scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having a well-described schema, the description lacks critical context for an agent. For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it should communicate expected return values, error handling, or prerequisites. The description is too sparse to be considered complete for a tool that modifies data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds the meaningful context of 'partial update', clarifying that the data object contains only fields to change. This goes slightly beyond the schema's 'Fields to change' wording, which already implies partial updates, but the explicit statement adds clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Update an existing coupon by id (partial update).' It specifies the resource (coupon), the method (update), and the key behavior (partial update), which distinguishes it from create, delete, or get operations. The parenthetical adds precision without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_coupon or delete_coupon. It does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be preferred. The only implicit hint is 'partial update', which suggests it is for modifying existing coupons, but no direct comparison is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action without addressing critical traits like error handling, atomicity, permissions, partial failures, or return values. Transparency 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a bulk operation with one nested parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but lacks important operational context such as batch size limits, transactionality, or error behavior. It is sufficient for basic understanding but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides a detailed description of the 'data' object, including example ids, status enums, and the active flag. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, warranting the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: updating the status/active state of many products at once. It uses a specific verb ('update'), identifies the resource ('products'), and distinguishes itself from single-item tools like update_product.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'many products at once' implies when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., update_product for single updates) or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Usage context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic delete action without mentioning permanence, cascade effects, idempotency, permissions, or what happens to related data. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of five words, making it very concise and front-loaded. It is under-specified for a destructive tool, but from a pure conciseness standpoint, it wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deletion tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context, such as consequences, return value, or error conditions. It only covers the basic action, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to use it safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage: the single parameter id is described as 'The resource id'. The description merely repeats 'by id', adding no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Delete' with a clear resource 'product' and identifier 'id', stating exactly what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling CRUD tools like get_product, create_product, and update_product.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use case: deleting a product by its id. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the sibling tool names make the context clear, and the action is obvious from the name and text.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only operation ('Get') and a clear scope, which implies a non-destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose what happens when the resource is not found, response format, or authentication requirements, which would be valuable for a getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, and the description covers the core operation, but it lacks information about return values (no output schema), error behavior, and the slight ambiguity of 'customer/user' with no clarification. This is adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'by id' but provides no additional formatting, type details, or semantics beyond what the schema already describes.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('customer/user'), and scope ('single ... by id'), which clearly communicates the operation and distinguishes it from list_customers. The phrase 'by id' also differentiates it from other get_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_customers. While the 'single ... by id' phrase implies it is for individual lookup, the description provides no direct context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose return value, error behavior (e.g., 404), authorization needs, or what an 'inventory' resource contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple get-by-id operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple schema and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It does not explain return values or the nature of 'inventory', leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'id' is described as 'The resource id'). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond 'by id', so it is at the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('inventory') with a clear scope qualifier ('single... by id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_inventory, which retrieves multiple records.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this when you need one inventory record and have its id. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_inventory or mention any exclusions/prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool supports pagination, search, and filters, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not mention return format, default sorting, or how filters behave (e.g., exact match), leaving some uncertainty. For a read-only list operation, this is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('List coupons') and immediately adds key features. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a basic overview but lacks detail. It does not explain the response structure, how filters are applied, or any constraints like maximum page size. The schema covers parameter semantics well, so the description is sufficient for a simple list tool but could benefit from more context about expected output or usage examples.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description mentions pagination, search, and filters, which aligns with the schema parameters (page, page_size, search, status, filters) but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The description thus does not compensate for any missing parameter context, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists coupons, using a specific verb and resource. It also mentions pagination, search, and filters, which conveys the scope and capabilities. It does not explicitly contrast with get_coupon or other list tools, but the resource name differentiates it from sibling list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied: use this tool when you need to list coupons. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_coupon or other list tools, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided. The description is minimal and leaves usage decisions entirely to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the 'partial update' behavior (only provided fields change) and that it targets an existing inventory by id, implying non-upsert semantics. However, it omits other relevant traits like response format, error cases, or required permissions, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the verb, target, and key constraint (partial update) efficiently. Perfectly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, one flexible object), the description is minimally viable but not rich. It omits return value behavior and error semantics, which are left entirely unspecified with no output schema. The missing details are noticeable for a mutation tool, but the core update operation and partial-update behavior are present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'id' and 'data' are documented in the schema, including common fields for the data object. The tool description repeats the 'by id' concept but adds no further parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Update'), the resource ('inventory'), and the scope ('by id', 'partial update'). This distinguishes it from retrieve/list/create/delete inventory tools as well as update tools for other resources in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing id) or alternatives such as get_inventory for checking current state. The only hint is the operation itself, but no explicit use-case context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Create a new product' and lists common fields, but does not disclose whether permissions are needed, what the return value is, side effects, or validation behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, two sentences, with the key verb and purpose up front. Every sentence provides value without unnecessary filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the tool returns or any constraints or prerequisites for creating a product. The hint to call get_product helps discover the full field shape, but for a create operation, return value and required fields should be clarified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema description is essentially identical to the tool description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the 'data' parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Create a new product', which clearly states the verb and resource. It also lists common fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_product and delete_product.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: this is for creating a new product. The sibling list includes update_product and delete_product, making the intended use obvious. However, there is no explicit 'when not to use' or mention of alternatives.
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 only states 'Get a single product by id.' It does not disclose behavior such as error handling (e.g., 404 if not found), authentication requirements, or return format. The read-only nature is implied by 'get,' but the description adds no transparency beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the key information, and contains no unnecessary words or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id tool, the description is largely sufficient. However, without an output schema, it does not mention what is returned on success or error, which could be useful but is not critical given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'id' parameter already described as 'The resource id.' The description merely restates 'by id' without adding additional meaning, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description precisely states the tool fetches a single product by ID with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like list_products (plural) and get_order (different resource).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the phrase 'single product' implies that it is for fetching one entity, contrasting with list or search tools. This is implied usage, not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the fields and parentCategoryId semantics, but does not disclose permissions, validation rules, idempotency, or the return value of the creation. For a write operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a short list of fields, front-loaded with the action. It is concise and every word provides value, with no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one nested parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides useful field guidance and a hint to inspect an existing record. However, it omits return value and error handling details, leaving some ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the single 'data' parameter with the same common fields, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds a useful pointer to get_category for the full record shape, slightly beyond the schema, but this is minimal. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Create a new category,' which is a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_category and delete_category. It immediately captures the core action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists common fields and advises calling get_category to see the full shape, giving useful context for how to construct the data object. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate it from update/delete operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions generic features that are already evident from the parameter names (pagination, search, filters). It does not disclose default sort order, page size limits, filter pass-through behavior, or confirm that the operation is read-only. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that captures the core action and key features without wasting words. It is appropriately sized for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (9 parameters, nested object) and no output schema, the description is minimal but workable. The schema fills in parameter details, but the description does not mention that all filters are optional, describe the paginated response structure, or clarify how the nested 'filters' object behaves. The schema's richness partially compensates, so a 3 is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions (e.g., 'Comma-separated SKUs to filter by', 'Page number, 1-based'). Since schema coverage is high, the description adds no parameter-level detail, warranting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('products'), and highlights three distinct capabilities: pagination, search, and filters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_product (singular list) and list_categories (different resource).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving multiple products with optional filtering and pagination, which provides clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tool list includes get_product for single-item lookups, making the usage context unambiguous. It lacks explicit when-not guidance, so it isn't a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not disclose potential errors (e.g., 404 when id not found) or return format. For a simple getter, this is acceptable but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that states the action and the key scope. It is concise and wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (one required parameter fully documented in the schema) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and invocation. However, it does not mention the return value or error behavior, which would make it fully complete for a getter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the id parameter with description 'The resource id.' The tool description repeats 'by id' without adding extra meaning or format details, so it adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get a single collection by id' with a clear verb (get), resource (collection), and scope (by id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as list_collections, update_collection, and delete_collection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving one collection by ID but does not explicitly state when to use this versus list_collections for fetching multiple collections. No alternative tools are mentioned, so guidance is only implied by the word 'single' and the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the partial-update behavior, which is important for understanding that only provided fields change. However, it does not mention error handling, side effects, authorization, or whether the updated order is returned. The partial update note adds some value, but more disclosure would be expected for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler or redundant restatements. It is front-loaded with the core action and key qualifier ('partial update'). Every word contributes value, achieving high conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description plus the high-coverage schema are largely sufficient. It answers what the tool does, how it works (partial update), and what arguments are needed. The absence of annotations and lack of info about return values or error conditions are minor gaps, but the overall context is adequate for a CRUD-style tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: both `id` and `data` have descriptions. The `data` parameter description lists common fields (status, paymentStatus, fulfillmentStatus, notes, tags), which is helpful. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update'), the resource ('order'), and the scope ('by id (partial update)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_order or update_product, and the 'partial update' qualifier signals PATCH-style semantics rather than full replacement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this when you need to modify an existing order. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over other tools, mention prerequisites (e.g., order must exist), or exclude scenarios like creating orders. No alternatives are named, but the purpose is clear enough that a model can infer basic usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds the key behavioral detail of partial updates, which is valuable. However, it omits information about side effects, return values, permissions, or error handling, which are typical for mutation tools.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple two-parameter schema and complete parameter documentation, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't clarify what the tool returns (e.g., updated category object, success flag), which would be helpful. Overall, it's sufficient but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including the 'data' object's common fields. The description's 'partial update' phrase adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema's 'Fields to change' already implies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update'), the resource ('category'), and the method ('by id' with 'partial update'). This distinguishes it from sibling update tools for other resources and from category creation/deletion tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: updating an existing category by id, and clarifies the partial update behavior. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names (e.g., create_category, delete_category) make the context 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 carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found) or return format. It provides minimal but non-misleading behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single succinct sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, and it is immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema, no complex behavior), the description adequately covers what it does. It does not explain the return value, but 'get' implies returning the order object, which is acceptable for a basic lookup.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the id parameter, with a generic 'resource id' description. The tool description's 'by id' adds a small semantic that this id identifies the order, but it does not significantly expand on the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('order'), and a unique identifier ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_orders, which retrieves multiple orders. The intent 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 Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates use when retrieving a single order by its id. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the presence of list_orders in the sibling tools implies this tool is for individual lookups. This is clear context, though not exhaustive.
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 bears the full transparency burden. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only, non-mutating operation, but the description adds no details about response format, default pagination behavior, or any edge cases. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'List collections with pagination, search and filters.' Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward list tool, the description covers the core functionalities and the schema fills in parameter details. It doesn't describe the return shape, but that is implied by 'List collections'. Given the nested filters object and six parameters, slightly more context would improve completeness, but it is adequate as-is.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage), including details like page_size maximum and filters being passed through verbatim. The description merely echoes 'pagination, search and filters' without adding new meaning, so it stays at the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'collections', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_collection. The mention of pagination, search, and filters further specifies the scope of the operation, making the 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 Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: when you need to list multiple collections with pagination or search capabilities. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_collection for single-item retrieval or mention alternative tools, so it provides clear context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the key behavioral trait 'partial update', indicating only provided fields are changed. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not disclose validation rules, error behavior, or whether the updated resource is returned. This is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that contains no filler. It efficiently communicates the operation, scope, and update mode.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two parameters and a detailed schema, the description plus schema is sufficient for correct invocation. The lack of output schema and absence of error handling details are minor gaps for a simple CRUD update, especially given the schema's completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'id' and 'data', including common fields for 'data'. The description adds 'partial update' but that is a general behavior, not additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing product by id (partial update).' It uses a specific verb ('Update'), names the resource ('product'), and specifies the scope ('by id', 'partial update'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_product and delete_product.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'existing product by id' gives clear context that this tool is for modifying an already-created product, implying it should not be used for new products or deletions. It does not explicitly name alternatives like create_product, but the usage context is unambiguous enough for the agent.
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 convey behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is a minimal disclosure. However, it does not mention return format, authentication, or performance characteristics, leaving some uncertainty for a tool with no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and object, with parenthetical examples. There is no wasted information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should provide more detail about the returned summary structure and field names. It gives a general sense of contents (sales, orders, revenue) but lacks specifics, which is a gap for agents relying solely on the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document. The description correctly avoids adding param details. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves an admin dashboard summary, listing specific metrics (sales, orders, revenue) that distinguish it from sibling tools which operate on individual entities like products or orders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The tool is uniquely positioned for store-wide summary metrics, and the description implies its use case. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the distinct purpose (dashboard summary vs. individual record operations) makes the context clear and no exclusions are necessary.
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 meaningfully discloses that the update is partial, indicating only provided fields will be changed and omitted ones remain untouched. This goes beyond the basic 'update' verb and provides key behavioral nuance, though it does not mention failure modes or return payload.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action, target, and update mode efficiently, providing excellent scannability for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, 2 fully covered parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage context: what it does, how to identify the resource, and the partial nature of the update. It does not describe response behavior, but this is not critical for correct invocation and the description is appropriately sized.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, with the data parameter already listing common fields. The description's 'partial update' wording reinforces the intended semantics but does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update'), the specific resource ('collection') and the method of identification ('by id'). It also explicitly notes 'partial update', which distinguishes it from create/delete/get operations and aligns perfectly with the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'existing collection' implies this tool should only be used for resources that already exist, providing clear context for when to invoke it. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is unambiguous for a CRUD tool with siblings like create_collection and delete_collection.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/itswadesh/kitcommerce-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server