MCP Server for Coroot

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources (applications, integrations, dashboards, etc.), but there is some overlap in 'configure_' tools for different telemetry types (logs, profiling, tracing) which could cause confusion. Overall, descriptions are clear enough to differentiate them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_application, update_dashboard, list_integrations). The naming is highly predictable and uniform across all 61 tools.
Tool Count2/5
With 61 tools, the surface is extremely large for a monitoring/observability server, making it overwhelming for agents to navigate. This many tools suggests poor scoping and likely includes many niche or rarely used operations.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive CRUD coverage for all major domains (projects, applications, integrations, dashboards, users, etc.), including advanced features like profiling, tracing, and AI analysis. No obvious gaps exist for the monitoring and observability purpose.
Average 3.4/5 across 61 of 61 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 27, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool deletes and reverts to default, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, irreversibility, error states, or side effects. The agent lacks critical context for 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two sentences plus an args line) and front-loaded, but it omits essential guidance. Conciseness here comes at the cost of completeness, making it minimally adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, one parameter with no semantic help, and an output schema (unknown content), the description leaves significant gaps. An agent cannot determine prerequisites, error handling, or the full effect of this delete operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter (project_id) with 0% description coverage. The description merely echoes 'Project ID' without adding any meaning—no format, source, constraints, or examples. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'custom cloud pricing configuration', and explains it reverts to default pricing. Among siblings like get_custom_cloud_pricing and update_custom_cloud_pricing, this tool's purpose as the delete operation is unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_custom_cloud_pricing to view before deleting, or update_custom_cloud_pricing to modify). No context about prerequisites, effects, or alternatives is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation via 'retrieves', but fails to disclose side effects, required permissions, or potential caching behavior. For a read tool, more transparency is expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief: two sentences plus an arg list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. The extra line for the parameter is somewhat redundant but not excessive. Could be tightened by removing the args section.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so the return values are covered. The description lists 'settings, integrations, and configuration' as included, which is adequate. However, given the complexity of sibling tools and no additional guidance, completeness is moderate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description must add meaning, but it merely repeats 'project_id: Project ID' from the schema. No format, constraints, or method to obtain the ID are provided. This adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves project details and configuration, using the verb 'get' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_project' or 'create_project' by its read-only nature. However, it could be more specific about what 'comprehensive information' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as 'get_project_status' or 'get_ai_config'. The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a mutation ('update', 'sets') but does not mention side effects, required permissions, or the reversible nature of the operation. The lack of detail on behavioral consequences is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with two sentences plus an Args list, which is appropriately sized. The main action is front-loaded. However, some of the space could be better used to add missing details, slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the pricing object and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value (though output schema exists), validation rules, or what constitutes a valid pricing configuration. A more complete description would include constraints or examples for the pricing parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, placing the burden on the description to clarify each parameter. The description provides minimal labels ('Project ID', 'Custom pricing configuration') but fails to explain the structure or expected keys of the pricing object (additionalProperties: true). This offers little beyond the schema property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Update custom cloud pricing configuration' and 'Sets custom pricing for cloud resources to override default pricing.' This clearly identifies the verb (update) and resource (custom cloud pricing), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_custom_cloud_pricing and get_custom_cloud_pricing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete or get. The description does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states the return behavior ('Returns the list'), but does not disclose any potential side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three short sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence contributes, though the first two sentences are slightly redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on when to use this tool versus alternatives and missing behavioral details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter 'project_id' has 0% schema description coverage. The description simply restates the parameter name with 'Project ID' as its description, adding no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the name implies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly indicates it retrieves custom application definitions, with a verb ('Get') and resource ('custom applications configuration'). It distinguishes from the sibling update_custom_applications, but could be more specific about what 'configuration' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other get_* tools like get_application or get_application_categories. The description does not mention any prerequisites or context for using this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or outline potential behavioral traits such as side effects or authorization needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with a clear summary and bullet points, though the parameter listing could be more integrated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema is mentioned but not shown; the description provides adequate return value context but lacks details on query syntax, scope, and edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only repeats parameter names with minimal elaboration (e.g., 'query: Search/filter query (optional)'), failing to explain expected formats or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a deployment tracking overview with specifics like timeline, success rates, and rollback history, distinguishing it from sibling overview tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other overview tools or under what conditions; it lacks explicit context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Update' and 'Configures' but does not disclose side effects, permissions, irreversibility, or output nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description starts with a clear summary but has slight redundancy between the first two sentences. The Args list improves structure. It is moderately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 params, nested config object, output schema), the description omits return value, mutation effects, and config structure, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by listing allowed db_type values and explaining app_id format. However, 'config' is vaguely described as 'Instrumentation configuration' without structure details, and schema coverage is 0%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it updates database instrumentation configuration and explains what it configures. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'get_db_instrumentation', though it does not explicitly reference alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context for invoking it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only says 'Update' and describes the argument, but doesn't disclose side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens to existing settings. No mention of the output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and an Args list. No extraneous information, though a brief note on return value would improve utility without adding much length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple update tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value or possible errors. Since the output schema exists, the agent might infer structure, but the description should mention it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter 'config' is a generic object with no schema details. The description adds 'AI provider settings (API keys, model selection, etc.)' giving context, but it remains vague. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates partially but insufficiently.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update AI provider configuration' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from 'get_ai_config'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other configure_* tools, which are about different domains (integration, logs, etc.).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_ai_config' or other configuration tools. The description does not 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry full burden. It only says 'updates the profile' without disclosing whether the update is partial or full, authentication requirements, side effects, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with two sentences and an 'Args' line. It is front-loaded but the 'Args' section is redundant. It could be more informative without extra length, but overall it is concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, but the description does not clarify what the tool returns (e.g., updated object, success message). With no annotations, more behavioral context is needed for a mutation tool. Completeness is low.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only repeats the parameter name 'user_data' and says 'Updated user information', adding no structural constraints, allowed fields, or format. For a single parameter with low coverage, this is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Update' and the resource 'current user information' / 'currently authenticated user'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_current_user' (read) and 'create_user' (creation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. Among siblings, 'get_current_user' exists but no differentiation is 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?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'updates the list'. It does not clarify whether updates are additive or replace the entire list, idempotency, required permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is somewhat verbose with a docstring-style Args block. The first and second sentences are repetitive. Could be more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention return values. For a mutation tool with complex input, more completeness is needed (e.g., effect, errors, or confirmation).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions project_id and applications but does not detail the structure of the 'applications' object beyond 'instance patterns'. The description is too vague for an object parameter with additionalProperties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool updates custom applications configuration and explains what custom applications are (grouping instances by container name patterns). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_custom_applications.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_application_category, configure_integration). Lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'updates' without mentioning side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens to unspecified settings. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is adequately sized but includes redundant 'Update project settings and configuration' twice and a rigid Args format. Could be more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing behavioral details and parameter specificity. Doesn't mention return values despite having an output schema. For a mutation tool with nested objects, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides brief docstrings for project_id and settings, but settings is described as 'Updated project settings' which adds little over the schema. Examples like retention and alerting give some context but are vague for a free-form object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it updates project settings and configuration, with examples like retention and alerting. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that update other entities (e.g., update_ai_config, update_application_category).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use. Siblings are listed but no differentiation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a mutation (update) but lacks behavioral details such as permissions needed, side effects, idempotency, or response behavior. With no annotations, the description should provide more context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise with three short sentences. However, the Args line is redundant given the schema. Well-structured but could be slightly improved.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits behavioral context like error cases, permission requirements, and impact on existing configurations. Incomplete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal meaning to the 'config' parameter beyond its name ('SSO configuration settings'), but lacks structural details or required fields. Since schema coverage is 0%, more elaboration is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it updates SSO configuration for the Coroot instance, specifying the resource (SSO config) and verb (update). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_sso_config.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or context for choosing among SSO-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description offers minimal behavioral context. It does not mention permissions, response format, or side effects, leaving the agent uninformed about important traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences plus an Args listing. It is front-loaded but includes redundant parameter info already in the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the description lacks context about what 'custom cloud pricing configuration' entails or the nature of overrides. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema; 'project_id: Project ID' merely restates the schema title. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves custom cloud pricing configuration and overrides for cost calculations, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like delete and update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_custom_cloud_pricing or update_custom_cloud_pricing. Usage is implied for retrieval but lacks recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool returns a list of inspection types and their configurations, but does not disclose error handling, authentication needs, or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with three sentences front-loading the purpose and then elaborating on return content. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers return content. However, it lacks details on pagination, error handling, or ordering for a list operation, which is acceptable but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no additional semantic meaning for the parameter beyond what is already in the schema (title and type). The 'Args: project_id: Project ID' line is a near duplicate of the schema's title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all available inspections for a project, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_inspection_config' by indicating plural inspections, but does not explicitly contrast with other 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_inspection_config' or other list tools. The description only specifies the project parameter without context on preconditions or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Creates a dashboard' without mentioning side effects, permissions, or constraints such as naming conflicts or validation rules.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main action. However, the parameter descriptions are terse, and the structure could benefit from more detail without being overly long.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists, the description covers essential purpose but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or interaction with sibling tools. It is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description provides only minimal parameter descriptions ('Project ID', 'Dashboard configuration with panels and layout'). It adds little beyond the schema field names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new custom dashboard' and elaborates on its purpose for monitoring infrastructure with custom panels and queries. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_dashboard and delete_dashboard.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or limitations mentioned. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states that a user account is created. It does not disclose mutation details, such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate email, or if permissions are validated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three short sentences. The first sentence highlights the admin requirement, and the third lists arguments. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for a creation tool with a complex parameter. It lacks error handling, response format (despite output schema existence), default values, and guidance on required fields within user_data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions), but the description lists three expected fields (email, name, role) which adds meaning beyond the generic object schema. However, it lacks type constraints or optionality details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a new user account, with the precondition 'admin only'. The verb 'Create' and resource 'user' are explicit. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_current_user', but the action is distinct enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Requires admin privileges' as a precondition, which guides usage. However, it does not specify when not to use (e.g., if user already exists) or suggest alternatives like updating an existing user.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only mentions retrieval without disclosing permissions, rate limits, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two clear sentences and an args list, no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately covers the retrieval purpose and mentions panels, but lacks detail on what the full configuration includes; output schema existence reduces need for return value documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description merely repeats parameter names as 'Project ID' and 'Dashboard ID', adding no meaningful detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a specific dashboard configuration including all panels, distinguishing it from list_dashboards and update_dashboard.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_dashboards or get_panel_data, or when not to use it.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It lists returned information types (health, status, etc.) but does not explicitly state read-only nature or any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Adequate but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise with clear front-loaded purpose, bullet points for returned info, and explicit parameter list. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and moderate complexity, description covers purpose and output fields moderately, but lacks usage context, parameter constraints, or any behavioral details beyond basic info.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It lists two arguments with minimal explanation (project_id as 'Project ID', query as 'Search/filter query (optional)'). Adds little beyond schema field names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb (Get overview) and resource (infrastructure nodes) with specific details (health, status, resource utilization, etc.). Does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'get_node', but name implies all nodes vs single node.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_node' or other overview tools. Does not 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states that it lists all custom dashboards and returns their configurations. It lacks details on pagination, ordering, permissions, error handling, or behavior when no dashboards exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and an arg list, front-loading the purpose. It wastes no words, though slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be detailed. However, given many sibling tools and a project context, the description omits edge cases (e.g., filtering, sorting) and does not differentiate from similar list operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only restates 'project_id: Project ID', adding no type, format, or constraints beyond the schema title. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('custom dashboards'), and the scope ('for a project'), effectively distinguishing it from related tools like create_dashboard, delete_dashboard, and get_dashboard.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_dashboard for a single dashboard or potential search capabilities. The description provides no exclusions or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'updates' but does not explain whether updates are partial or full replacements, what happens to omitted fields, or any destructive consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences plus an Args block. It is somewhat concise but includes redundant repetition of parameter names that already appear in the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an update operation and the lack of annotations, the description does not provide sufficient context on how to use the tool safely (e.g., required permissions, behavior of the dashboard parameter, return value despite having an output schema).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description merely lists the parameter names in Args without adding meaning, format, or constraints beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool updates an existing dashboard configuration, specifying panels, layout, or other settings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_dashboard' and 'delete_dashboard'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for updating existing dashboards but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is safe or destructive, impact on running applications, or any other behavioral traits. The description merely states what the tool does without transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is clear and reasonably concise, with a structured Args section. However, the Args section overlaps with the schema, and some sentences could be merged. Overall, it is well-organized but not maximally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, 3 required, and an output schema, the description adds necessary context but does not cover edge cases or interactions (e.g., changing sample rate while enabled). It is adequate but lacks completeness for a configuration tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description provides brief semantics for each parameter (e.g., 'Optional sampling rate (0.0-1.0)'), adding value beyond the schema's titles. However, the descriptions are minimal and do not explain the meaning of parameters thoroughly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Configure CPU and memory profiling for an application', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling configure tools like configure_integration, configure_logs, and configure_tracing by focusing on profiling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no discussion of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparison to other configuration tools. The Args section lists parameters but does not offer usage context.
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation retrieving data, which is transparent. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors such as data freshness limits, required permissions, or response size constraints. The transparency 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a summary line, bulleted list of returned categories, and an Args section. It is concise and front-loaded with the essential information. Every part serves a purpose, though the bullet list could be slightly condensed. Overall, it is efficient without being overly brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides a good overview of the tool's output (performance, health, incidents, deployment history) and the required parameters. Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return types. However, given the many sibling tools, a more explicit scope definition (e.g., 'single application') and potential limitations (e.g., pagination) would improve completeness. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions for any parameters (0% coverage). The description's Args section adds minimal meaning: it repeats parameter names, notes that timestamps are optional, and provides a format hint for app_id ('namespace/kind/name'). This compensates somewhat, but does not explain expected types (e.g., timestamp format) or default behaviors fully. A higher score would require richer parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get application details and metrics' and enumerates specific categories (performance, health, incidents, deployments). It uses a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_application_logs or get_application_profiling, which retrieve more focused aspects. This lack of distinction prevents 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists what the tool returns but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_application_logs or get_application_traces. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' advice, making it less helpful for an agent choosing among many similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as prerequisites (e.g., AI model availability), side effects, or output format hints beyond 'provides insights'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the key action. However, the 'Args' section is somewhat redundant and could be integrated into the sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic purpose but lacks detail on what the analysis output contains (though an output schema exists). It minimally addresses the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds format info for 'app_id' (namespace/kind/name) and repeats parameter names, but 0% schema coverage means it should do more; 'project_id' is vaguely described as 'Project ID'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves AI-powered root cause analysis for application issues, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_application' and 'get_application_logs'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to prefer logs over RCA). The description is purely functional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state the tool's read-only nature, authorization requirements, side effects, or any other behavioral traits. It merely implies a read operation via 'Get'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and structured with an Args section, making it easy to parse. However, it somewhat duplicates the schema parameter names without adding much new information, slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 required parameters and an output schema not mentioned, the description is adequate but fails to describe the return value, error handling, or any additional context like permissions or limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by specifying the format for app_id and listing allowed values for db_type, but does not describe the purpose or constraints of each parameter in detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves database instrumentation configuration for a specific database type, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_ai_config' and 'get_inspection_config' by its focus on database instrumentation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, lacks prerequisites or exclusions, and does not mention any context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose side effects or constraints. It only implies a read operation but does not explicitly state idempotency, rate limits, or that it has no side effects. The absence of such details leaves room for uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a brief introductory sentence followed by bullet points listing returned information and an Args section. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two required parameters, an output schema exists), the description adequately covers the purpose and returned data. It does not need to detail return values since an output schema is present. Minor omission: no mention of error conditions or prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description lists 'Args: project_id: Project ID, incident_id: Incident ID' but adds no semantic meaning beyond the parameter names, such as expected format or validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Get detailed information about a specific incident' and lists specific data included (timeline, affected apps, impact, resolution). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_application or get_project, which target 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_application_rca or other incident-related tools. The description assumes the user knows when to retrieve incident details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states what it retrieves, omitting potential side effects, permissions, or limitations. Minimal transparency beyond the basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is two sentences, front-loaded with action. Could be more concise, but overall efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has output schema and no parameters, the description adequately covers what the tool does. Simple tool; no significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has no parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, as there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves SSO configuration and available roles, using a specific verb and resource. However, it could be slightly more distinct from sibling 'get' tools, but it suffices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_sso_config or other configuration getters. The description lacks context for usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning 'configuration status' for a list of integrations, but does not disclose authorization requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens if the project_id is invalid. The description is insufficient given the lack of 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise, listing integrations in a bullet format that is easy to scan. The structure is front-loaded with the main action, but the Args section could be better integrated. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool has a simple single-parameter schema and no annotations, the description lacks detail about the output schema (which exists) and what 'configuration status' entails for each integration. The completeness is inadequate given the lack of annotation support and the list of sibling tools that may have overlapping functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter (project_id, string) with no description. The description repeats this parameter as 'Args: project_id: Project ID', which adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all configured integrations for a project and enumerates the available integrations (Prometheus, ClickHouse, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('integrations'), and is easily distinguished from siblings like 'configure_integration' or 'get_integration'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving a list of all integrations, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_integration' (which likely retrieves a single integration) or other list tools. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden but only states it 'updates' and that format varies by type. No details on mutation behavior, authentication needs, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise but contains redundancy in first two sentences. Could be consolidated. Otherwise well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, description lacks important details like whether config is merged or replaced, validation constraints, and prerequisites. Not fully complete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description provides meaningful explanations for all four parameters (e.g., app_id format, inspection_type examples, config variability). Adds value beyond schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'update' and resource 'inspection configuration for an application'. Differentiates from sibling tools like 'get_inspection_config' and other update tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. Does not mention when not to use or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions the tool 'controls which logs are collected and processed' and describes parameters, but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., whether settings are appended or overwritten), idempotency, or asynchronous behavior. The mutation aspect is implied but not clarified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with one introductory sentence followed by a clear Args list. No unnecessary details, but the structure is adequate and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all parameters and basic functionality, but given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, mutation), it lacks information on prerequisites, error states, or what the output contains. Since an output schema exists, the agent can infer returns, but completeness is still moderate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and providing valid values for 'level' (debug, info, warn, error) and clarifying 'excluded_patterns' as regex. This adds significant value beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool configures log collection settings for an application, specifying it controls log level filtering and pattern exclusions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like configure_integration or configure_profiling, which handle 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for setting up log collection but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_application_logs or other configure tools. The sibling names suggest separate domains, but no direct comparison is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the deletion action without mentioning consequences, reversibility, permissions, or side effects. This leaves a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose, but the 'Args' section redundantly restates schema information. It could be more efficient by removing the redundant parameter listing, as the schema already defines them.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description lacks details on return values, error handling, or idempotency. It does not explain what happens after deletion, making it somewhat incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning to parameters. It merely repeats the parameter names ('Project ID', 'Type of integration to delete') without providing examples, constraints, or format details, adding minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('integration configuration'), differentiating it from sibling tools like configuration, retrieval, listing, and testing. The verb 'delete' and noun 'integration' are explicit 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to remove an integration), but it does not include any exclusions or alternatives. It is adequate for a simple deletion operation, lacking explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It warns of irreversibility, which is good, but lacks details about required permissions, impacts on child resources, asynchronous behavior, or confirmation responses.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, with an important warning front-loaded. The parameter listing is redundant but not overly verbose. Could be slightly improved by removing the redundant 'Args' line.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, the description should provide more context on prerequisites, error handling, or return values. However, since an output schema exists, the omission of return value details is acceptable. Still, behavioral completeness is moderate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description merely restates the parameter name and type from the schema ('project_id: Project ID'), adding no additional semantic meaning beyond what the input schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (project), and specifies that it deletes 'all associated data', which distinguishes it from other delete tools like delete_api_key that delete 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a warning about irreversibility, implying caution, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_project_settings or other management tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation and lists what status includes, but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or rate limitations. Adequate for a simple get tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise but includes an 'Args' section that largely duplicates the schema. Could be streamlined to remove redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple status tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description adequately lists return fields. However, lacking usage guidance slightly reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter with 0% description coverage. The description repeats 'project_id: Project ID' in Args, which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's title. More detail on format or source would help.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves project status including agent and integration health, and lists specific components. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_project' or 'health_check' by focusing on status metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_project' or 'health_check'. The description only lists output fields without advising on context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It does not disclose whether updates are additive or overwriting, permission requirements, or side effects like triggering alerts. Only states general purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by structured argument documentation. No redundant information, and front-loaded for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the nested object parameter and existence of output schema, the description misses context about the expected structure of 'risks' and what the output contains. Lacks connection to related read tool (get_risks_overview) for workflow guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description includes arg descriptions for all three parameters, adding format hint for app_id. However, the 'risks' parameter lacks structural detail beyond 'risk assessment configuration', leaving ambiguity about required fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates risk assessment configuration for an application, specifying the verb 'update' and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_risks_overview which is read-only.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_risks_overview or other update tools. Missing explicit context for when to apply updates 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?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It states 'Create or update' but lacks details on merge behavior, permission replacement, idempotency, or error conditions. The admin restriction is noted, but more transparency is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a front-loaded purpose and an 'Args' section. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured with examples.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an upsert operation with permissions, the description omits return value (output schema exists), update behavior, and permission string details. It is incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It only repeats parameter names without explaining permission format, valid values, or usage context. This provides minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create or update a user role' with a specific verb and resource, and notes it is admin-only. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_roles' (read-only) and other CRUD tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies 'admin only', indicating a usage prerequisite. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but since no other role mutation tools exist, it is clear when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the restriction on built-in categories but omits other important details such as success/error responses, permanence of deletion, permissions required, or side effects. The output schema exists but is not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with the purpose stated upfront and the constraint noted. The Args section is clear, though the information could be integrated into the prose without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two required parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core action and a key constraint. However, it lacks details about output, error handling, or relationships to other tools (e.g., create or update).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage; the description adds brief meanings for both parameters ('Project ID' and 'Category name to delete'), which provides some clarity beyond the titles, but the explanations are minimal and could be more precise.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool deletes an application category and distinguishes between custom and built-in categories, which differentiates it from siblings like create_application_category or update_application_category.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by naming the action, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use update instead). It mentions built-in categories cannot be deleted, which is a constraint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It states the tool verifies connectivity but does not disclose side effects (likely none), safety characteristics, or behavior on failure. A test action is typically read-only, but this is not confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with no extraneous words. Two sentences plus a structured Args section. Front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 required strings) and existence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the core purpose. However, it omits details about what a test returns (e.g., success/failure signals), which could help agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining 'project_id' as 'Project ID' and 'integration_type' as 'Type of integration (prometheus, slack, etc)', providing concrete examples beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it tests an integration configuration and verifies connectivity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'configure_integration' (setup) and 'delete_integration' (removal), though it could be more precise about what 'test' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after configuration and before use ('Verifies that an integration is properly configured'), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance. No siblings are mentioned for exclusion.
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 discloses that deletion is permanent ('permanently removes'), which is key for a destructive operation. However, it lacks details on authorization requirements, whether cascading effects occur, or what the response looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with a clear heading and structured Args block. Every sentence is necessary; no superfluous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic operation but omits return value, error scenarios, and preconditions. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of annotations, more context (e.g., idempotency, permissions) would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args block lists parameter names and provides brief labels ('Project ID', 'Dashboard ID'), which adds some context beyond the bare schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but does not explain types, formats, or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a custom dashboard' and emphasizes permanent removal, providing a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_dashboard or create_dashboard.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, or prerequisites such as requiring the dashboard to exist. Does not indicate scenarios where deletion is appropriate or contraindicated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must bear full burden. It implies read-only but does not explicitly state no side effects or auth requirements. Basic transparency is present but could be improved by stating it is safe and idempotent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is short and to the point, with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns with an example. It could mention error handling or required permissions, but for a simple get operation, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description should add value. It merely repeats 'Project ID' without explaining format, constraints, or purpose. Minimal help beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves application category configuration, using specific verb 'Get' and resource 'application categories configuration'. The sibling tools (create, delete, update) make it distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_application_category or update_application_category. The description does not provide usage context or scenarios.
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 burden. It mentions returns overview with health, KPIs, etc., but does not disclose performance implications, rate limits, permissions, or whether it aggregates data from multiple sources. The disclosure is adequate but lacking depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is fairly concise but includes an 'Args' section that largely repeats parameter information from the schema. It is front-loaded with purpose, but the redundancy could be trimmed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters, no enums, and an existing output schema, the description lists key return fields (health, KPIs, etc.) which adds value. However, it lacks differentiation from siblings like get_application or get_deployments_overview, and does not explain when to use this overview over specific tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains project_id and query briefly, adding that query is for search/filter. However, it does not specify query syntax or provide examples, leaving room for ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns an overview of all applications in a project, listing specific data points (health, KPIs, resource usage, incidents). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_application (single app) and other overview tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a high-level view but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_application for detailed data or other overview tools. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.
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 description carries the burden. It describes the tool as a read operation ('Get detailed information'), which is appropriate. However, it does not disclose any permission requirements, rate limits, or whether data is live vs cached. For a simple get, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a title line, bulleted list of retrieved info, and an Args section. It is concise without being overly terse, though the Args section could be integrated into the prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks explanation of parameter sources or prerequisites (e.g., node must exist, project must be accessible). It covers the basics but misses some context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. However, it only repeats parameter names ('project_id: Project ID, node_id: Node ID') without adding any format, constraints, or examples. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Title is null but description clearly states 'Get detailed information about a specific infrastructure node' and lists specific metrics (CPU, memory, disk, network, containers, health, system info). This distinguishes it from sibling get_nodes_overview (which lists nodes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_nodes_overview or other get_* tools. The usage is implied for retrieving detailed node info, but no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses basic behavior (lists all keys, returns metadata but not secrets) and implies idempotence/read-only. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error conditions. It is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences and an args line. It front-loads the primary action and return value. No redundant words, every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, list operation, output schema present), the description covers the return value and basic function. It omits details like pagination and error handling, but these are not critical for such a straightforward tool. Lacks parameter context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only repeats 'project_id' as 'Project ID' without explaining its format, source, or how to obtain it. This adds little value beyond the schema field name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool lists all API keys for a project and returns metadata but not secret values. The verb 'list' and resource 'API keys' are specific, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like 'create_api_key' and 'delete_api_key'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context-specific scenarios. The description only explains what the tool does, not when it should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool controls (sampling rate, excluded paths) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether settings are overwritten, idempotency, or side effects. The description lacks depth for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise with a short paragraph and a structured args list. The list adds necessary detail, but the prose is front-loaded and efficient. Minor redundancy exists between the first sentence and the list.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers all parameters with basic descriptions. However, it does not specify whether the configuration replaces or merges with existing settings, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools. The context signals indicate 5 parameters and 3 required, and the description addresses the required ones, but lacks depth for a few optional ones.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's args list adds meaningful details beyond the schema's titles. For example, it specifies that sample_rate is 0.0-1.0 and excluded_paths is a list of URL paths. This compensates well for the schema gaps, though some parameters could benefit from more precise formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'configure' and resource 'distributed tracing' for an application, listing specific settings like sampling rate and excluded paths. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as 'configure_logs' and 'configure_profiling' by naming the target resource explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description and tool name imply the tool is for configuring tracing, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use it versus alternatives like 'configure_logs' or 'configure_profiling'. The agent must infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or error behavior. For a creation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: two lines of purpose plus an args section. No wasted words, front-loaded with action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple (one parameter, output schema exists). The description covers naming rules, but lacks error or uniqueness mentions. Still fairly complete given simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds the crucial regex pattern for the 'name' parameter, providing meaning beyond the empty schema field.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Create a new project' and specifies it's a Coroot project with a given name. Distinct from siblings like delete_project and update_project_settings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use, prerequisites (e.g., existence of parent project), or alternatives. The naming constraint is given but context is missing.
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 implies read-only access but does not explicitly confirm lack of side effects, required permissions, or potential performance impact. The description is minimal beyond return categories.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise: a clear first sentence, bullet points for output categories, and a brief args list. No extraneous information, and the structure makes it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's inputs and high-level outputs. It lacks information on prerequisites or permissions, but for a read-oriented overview tool, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description includes an Args section that explains both parameters: project_id as 'Project ID' and query as 'Search/filter query (optional)'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic title and type information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a risk assessment overview, listing specific analysis categories such as high-risk apps and risk trends. It uses a specific verb and resource, and among sibling tools, no other tool focuses solely on risks, making it distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. It simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a summary and lists content, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like query behavior limits, pagination, or cost. The description is straightforward but not deep.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with bullet points for return items and clear args listing. Every sentence serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks details on how the query parameter affects results or any filtering nuances. For a tool with 0% schema coverage, more contextual information is needed for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It merely restates 'project_id: Project ID' and 'query: Search/filter query (optional)', adding minimal value beyond the schema. The query parameter's filtering behavior is not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get distributed tracing overview' and lists specific items like trace volume, trends, error rates, etc. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_application_traces by focusing on an overview across all applications.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for getting a cross-application summary, but does not explicitly guide when to use this versus alternatives like get_application_traces. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.
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 exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses mutation (update) and partial update semantics. However, it does not mention idempotency, prerequisites (e.g., category existence), error conditions, or the output schema. Adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with purpose. The Args section is clear, though the first two sentences are slightly redundant ('Update an existing application category.' vs 'Updates specific fields...'). Still efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters (2 required) and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics well but misses return value details (output schema exists but unmentioned) and prerequisites. Decent but could be more complete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by listing all parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'New space-separated glob patterns (optional)'). This adds meaning beyond the schema, but could be more precise about constraints or types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing application category' and 'Updates specific fields... Only provided fields are updated.' This specifies the action (update), resource (application category), and partial update behavior, distinguishing it from create and delete siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_application_category or delete_application_category. The description only implies usage via the action, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as whether the operation is idempotent, destructive, or requires specific permissions. It does not clarify if the config parameter merges or overwrites existing settings, nor does it mention any side effects or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear header listing integration types in bullet points. It front-loads the purpose and parameter list. While the integration type list is helpful, it could be slightly more concise, but overall it is efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, and integration types. An output schema exists (not shown), so return values are not required. The config parameter is explained as a dictionary but lacks example structures. Still, for a configuration tool with moderate complexity, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 required parameters with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by adding clear semantics for each parameter (e.g., 'Project ID', 'Type of integration', 'Integration-specific configuration dictionary'), which adds value beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Configure an integration for a project' and lists integration types with brief descriptions. The verb 'Configure' and resource 'integration' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like configure_logs, configure_profiling etc., which handle different aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Sets up or updates an integration configuration' and lists integration types, which helps the agent understand scope. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., test_integration, delete_integration) or provide exclusion criteria or 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?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses irreversibility ('This action cannot be undone') but lacks details on permissions, idempotency, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and an Args list, front-loading the action and providing necessary details without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple parameters and an output schema, the description covers the action, irreversibility, and parameters adequately, though it omits return value details (handled by output schema).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description includes an Args section explaining each parameter (project_id, key), adding meaning beyond the schema's property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete an API key' and 'Removes an API key from the project', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_api_key and list_api_keys.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it warns 'This action cannot be undone', it does not specify prerequisites or context for use.
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 says it retrieves logs (read operation) but does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention any side effects. No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden, but it is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Structured with a brief main description and an Args list. Minor repetition in the first two sentences, but overall concise and well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameter semantics, though it lacks usage guidelines.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the Args section in the description fully explains all 6 parameters, including formats and optionality, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves application logs with automatic pattern detection and grouping. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_application_traces or get_application_profiling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description explains filtering capabilities but does not specify when not to use or provide comparisons to similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses pattern constraints and default values for boolean parameters. However, it omits key behavioral details such as whether creation is idempotent (e.g., duplicate name handling), error conditions, or required permissions. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a short summary followed by an Args list. It is reasonably concise, though the Args block could be slightly tightened. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, but the description does not mention what it returns (e.g., the created category object). It also lacks error scenarios (e.g., invalid pattern, duplicate name). While sibling tools provide context, the description alone is incomplete for a creation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains all six parameters, including format constraints for 'name' (lowercase, min 3 chars) and 'custom_patterns' (space-separated globs, exactly one '/'), plus defaults and optionality. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Create a new application category' and explains its function for grouping applications using namespace/name patterns. It provides specific format requirements for patterns, making the purpose highly concrete and distinguishable from sibling tools like update or delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (to create a new category) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., update_application_category) or mention prerequisites (e.g., existence of a project). No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Retrieves the current configuration'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the configuration doesn't exist. The presence of an output schema helps but is not leveraged in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise with a two-line summary followed by parameter details. The Args format is clear but could be shortened by integrating some parameter info into the first line. Still, every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with 3 parameters and an existing output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains all parameters and the tool's purpose. Minor gaps exist (e.g., error handling, response structure), but the output schema fills some of that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section adds meaning: it explains project_id, app_id (with format hint 'namespace/kind/name'), and inspection_type (with examples). This compensates well for the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get inspection configuration for an application,' specifying the verb and resource. It lists example inspection types (cpu, memory, slo_availability, slo_latency), distinguishing it from other get_* sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving configuration but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ai_config or get_application. Given the large number of similar get_* siblings, some comparative guidance would be beneficial.
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. It states that data is retrieved (read operation) and mentions optional time parameters, but does not explicitly confirm read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a read tool, this is minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a concise docstring with a clear summary and parameter list. It avoids unnecessary words but could be more structured. The parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it adds value through formatting hints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and basic usage. However, it lacks information about error scenarios or data refresh behavior, which would make it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides parameter names and brief explanations, e.g., 'from_time: Optional start time (ISO format or relative like '-1h')'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles, though more detail on format constraints would improve it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Get data for a specific dashboard panel,' which is a specific verb and resource. It elaborates on what kind of data (metrics, time series, aggregated values), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like get_dashboard that likely return metadata. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving panel data but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_dashboard or other get_* tools. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or context, though the purpose is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses an important behavioral trait: the key secret is only returned once during creation. It does not discuss permissions or rate limits, but the secret disclosure is a key behavioral note.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the 'Args' section is somewhat redundant with the schema, and the explanation is not overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description covers the creation flow and the important note about secret being returned once. Yet it omits details on idempotency, error conditions, and does not reference sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists the three arguments with brief descriptions (Project ID, API key name, Optional description), which adds basic meaning but lacks depth on constraints or valid values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates an API key for data ingestion, used for sending metrics and data. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_api_keys (list) and delete_api_key (delete), making the purpose specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when an API key for data ingestion is needed. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear enough with siblings like list_api_keys.
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 adequately covers the read operation and mentions the output includes connection details, settings, and status. However, it does not discuss authentication, permissions, or rate limits, which limits transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and a parameter list, front-loaded with the purpose. No unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose and key return fields. It could mention required permissions or error cases, but overall is complete enough for a 'get' tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value: 'project_id' is merely restated, while 'integration_type' includes examples. This is insufficient to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves configuration details for a specific integration type, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_integrations (which lists all) and test_integration (which tests connectivity).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for retrieving a specific integration's configuration. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it (e.g., for listing all integrations). This cost one point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is a read operation retrieving settings, which is straightforward. However, it does not elaborate on authentication needs, side effects, or return format beyond what the output schema provides. The description is adequate but lacks extra 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and then provides context. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool does and its specific use case (root cause analysis). No additional context is necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not add parameter details, but with zero parameters, no additional semantics are needed. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get AI provider configuration' and specifies the purpose 'used for root cause analysis.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_ai_config' which is a write operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving AI config settings but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like other getter tools. The context of siblings suggests it is the only getter for AI config, but no explicit guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description adequately states that the tool returns all assignable roles. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, caching, or permission requirements, which would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that are front-loaded and directly address the tool's purpose. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description fully covers what the agent needs to know. It specifies the return value and provides examples, making it complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. According to calibration, a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds meaning by explaining what the response contains, which is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get available user roles.' It provides concrete examples (Viewer, Editor, Admin) and the verb 'get' combined with resource 'roles' distinguishes it from siblings like create_or_update_role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving roles but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites, though the purpose is clear enough for a simple read operation.
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, description carries full burden. It warns about extremely large responses (180k+ tokens) and recommends time filters, which is valuable behavioral information beyond schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description uses clear sections and a warning, but could be slightly more concise. Good front-loading with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, parameter details, and a critical warning. Output schema exists so return values not needed. Could add permissions or prerequisites, but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description's Args block explains all five parameters, includes format hint for app_id and strong recommendation for timestamps, fully compensating for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'CPU and memory profiling data for an application', distinguishing from sibling tools like get_application_logs or configure_profiling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives; usage context is implied by the tool's purpose. The warning about large responses provides some operational guidance but not tool selection advice.
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 full burden. It reveals that the tool returns roles and permissions and requires admin privileges. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and follows with necessary context (admin requirement, return content). Every sentence is essential.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and existence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality: list all users, return roles/permissions, admin required. It is reasonably complete, though it could mention if the list is paginated or if there are any limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description does not need to add parameter details. With no parameters, baseline is 4, and the description adequately handles this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all users in the system' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_user, delete_user, and get_current_user by focusing on listing all users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Requires admin privileges,' which provides a clear precondition. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, though the sibling list implies that get_current_user is for the current user only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It specifies the return fields and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm authentication requirements or error scenarios, which would be helpful but are partially inferred.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by return details. No unnecessary words, perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, return fields, and context (authenticated user). Sibling tools are distinct and do not overlap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by describing the output structure, which is not in the schema. This meets the expectation for a parameter-less tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action (Get) and resource (current authenticated user information), listing specific return fields (email, name, roles, accessible projects). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_users which returns all users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it is for the current user's info, but no direct comparison to sibling tools like list_users or update_current_user is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns projects accessible to the authenticated user and includes ID and name. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or limits—acceptable for a simple list tool but could be more explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and no extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context. It explains the return structure, though it could mention if there is any default ordering or limit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters (0, coverage 100%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that each project includes 'ID and name', going beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all accessible projects' with verb 'list' and resource 'projects'. It specifies scope (accessible to authenticated user) and output fields (ID and name), differentiating from sibling tools like get_project (single project) or create/delete/update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates when to use: when you need a list of all accessible projects. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but given the simplicity, this is acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a simple read-only check with no side effects, which is clear despite no annotations. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but the behavior is straightforward.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no superfluous text, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete for a simple health check tool with no parameters and an output schema. It provides all necessary context for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the health check beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks if the Coroot server is healthy, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on specific configurations or data retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is a basic health check for verifying server accessibility, but it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description warns that responses can be very large (100k+ tokens), which is key behavioral information. With no annotations provided, this disclosure is valuable, though it could mention read-only nature or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a concise summary, followed by a warning, then a clear parameter listing. Every sentence adds value, and the warning is highlighted appropriately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage guidance, behavioral warning, and parameter details thoroughly. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 6 parameters are explained beyond the schema. The description adds context for each, such as formatting for app_id and recommendations for timestamps, fully compensating for 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves distributed tracing data for an application, specifying request flow and dependencies. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_application_logs and get_traces_overview by focusing on traces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a warning about large responses and recommends using time filters or trace_id to limit data. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools for when to use this one over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

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

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

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jamesbrink/mcp-coroot'

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