Cloudflare MCP Server

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 clear, distinct purposes targeting specific Cloudflare resources like DNS records, page rules, security rules, zones, SSL certificates, WAF rules, and cache. However, 'list_zone_settings' and 'get_zone_settings' appear redundant, as both seem to retrieve zone settings, which could cause confusion. Otherwise, the overlap is minimal.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent pattern with the prefix 'cloudflare-dns-mcp_' and a clear verb_noun structure (e.g., create_dns_record, list_zones, update_zone_settings). All tools use snake_case uniformly, making them predictable and easy to parse for an agent.
Tool Count4/5
With 18 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for a Cloudflare server covering DNS, security, caching, and zone management. It provides comprehensive coverage without being overwhelming, though it borders on the heavier side for typical MCP scopes.
Completeness4/5
The tool set offers strong coverage for core Cloudflare operations, including CRUD for DNS records, security rules, and page rules, along with listing zones, SSL certs, WAF rules, and cache management. Minor gaps include no update for page rules or SSL certs, and the echo tool feels out of place, but agents can work around these.
Average 2.8/5 across 18 of 18 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'update' implies a mutation, the description doesn't disclose critical traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. It also doesn't describe the response format or error conditions, which is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of updating a security rule with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use, such as behavioral details, parameter explanations, or output expectations. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with multiple undocumented parameters.
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 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning none are documented in the schema. The description adds no semantic information about parameters like 'action', 'expression', or 'priority', nor does it explain the required 'zone_name' and 'rule_id'. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb ('update') and resource ('an existing firewall security rule'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_dns_record' or 'update_zone_settings' beyond the resource type, nor does it specify what aspects of the rule can be updated. This makes it somewhat vague compared to more specific descriptions.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing rule ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_security_rule' or 'delete_security_rule'. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for agent decision-making.
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 at just 8 words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted words. It efficiently communicates the essential action and scope in a single, clear sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a write operation with 10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral characteristics, success criteria, or provide any context beyond the basic action. This leaves the agent poorly equipped to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'in a given zone' which hints at the 'zone_name' parameter, but with 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, it fails to explain what any parameters mean or how they interact. Key required parameters like 'type', 'name', and 'content' are completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their purpose and format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new DNS record in a given zone'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_dns_records' (read vs. write) and 'update_dns_record' (create vs. modify), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing zone), compare to sibling tools like 'update_dns_record' for modifications, or specify scenarios where DNS record creation is appropriate versus other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation, implying it's a write/mutation tool, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the redirect is immediately active, or what happens on duplicate source URLs. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a creation tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'Page Rule' is in Cloudflare context, doesn't cover parameter meanings, doesn't describe the return value or success/failure behavior, and provides no usage context. For a mutation tool with rich parameters, this leaves too many unknowns.
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 by explaining parameters, but it adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by 'URL redirect'. It doesn't explain what 'zone_name', 'source_url', 'target_url', or any optional parameters mean, their relationships, or format requirements. With 7 parameters (3 required) completely undocumented, this is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('single URL redirect (Page Rule) for the given zone'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_dns_record' by specifying it creates redirects rather than DNS records. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_page_rules' or 'delete_page_rule', leaving some sibling differentiation incomplete.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing zone), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'create_dns_record' (which might handle redirects differently) or 'list_page_rules' (for viewing existing redirects).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate rule names, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with this level of complexity and is perfectly front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'custom firewall security rule' entails, what valid 'action' values are, how 'expression' should be formatted, or what the tool returns. The agent lacks critical context for proper tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name - it doesn't explain what 'action', 'expression', 'priority', 'paused', 'rule_name', or 'zone_name' mean or how they should be formatted. This is inadequate given the complete lack of schema 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 the verb ('Create') and resource ('custom firewall security rule for a zone'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_dns_record' or 'create_redirect' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_security_rule' or 'delete_security_rule' beyond the action verb.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing zone), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'update_security_rule' or 'list_waf_rules'. The agent must infer usage from the tool 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Delete,' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify whether this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., DNS propagation delays). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant or verbose phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like irreversibility, error conditions, or what happens post-deletion. For a delete operation in a DNS context, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'by ID,' which hints at the 'record_id' parameter, but doesn't explain 'zone_name' or provide any context about parameter formats, sources, or relationships. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal value beyond naming one parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('DNS record by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'update_dns_record' by specifying deletion rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the zone context, which is implied but could be more specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing to identify a record ID first via 'list_dns_records'), nor does it clarify when deletion is appropriate versus updating or other operations. No explicit alternatives 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose that this is a destructive operation (implied by 'Delete'), potential side effects, authentication needs, error conditions, or response format, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words, efficiently conveying the core action. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded for a simple operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like behavioral risks, parameter meanings, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'rule_id' or 'zone_name' represent, their formats, or how to obtain them, failing to address the undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a page rule by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cloudflare-dns-mcp_delete_dns_record' or 'cloudflare-dns-mcp_delete_security_rule', but the resource specificity is inherent in the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing page rule ID from 'cloudflare-dns-mcp_list_page_rules'), exclusions, or contextual cues for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Delete') but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
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 destructive nature, 2 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context, and usage guidelines, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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 by explaining parameters. It mentions no parameters at all, leaving 'rule_id' and 'zone_name' undocumented. This fails to add meaning beyond the bare schema, which is insufficient for a tool with 2 required parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a firewall security rule'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'cloudflare-dns-mcp_delete_dns_record' or 'cloudflare-dns-mcp_delete_page_rule' beyond the resource type, missing explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing rule), exclusions, or compare it to related tools like 'cloudflare-dns-mcp_update_security_rule' or 'cloudflare-dns-mcp_list_waf_rules', leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') but doesn't describe critical behaviors: whether it's paginated, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or what happens if no zone is specified. For a read operation with 4 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits (like pagination or auth), and output format. For a list operation with filtering options, this leaves the agent under-informed.
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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'zone' and implies filtering ('for a zone or across all zones'), but doesn't explain the 4 parameters: 'zone_name', 'name_filter', 'record_type', or 'include_metadata'. No parameter details are provided beyond vague scope hints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('DNS records'), and specifies the scope ('for a zone or across all zones'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_zones' or 'list_waf_rules' by focusing on DNS records. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_ssl_certs' or 'list_page_rules' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a zone identifier), compare it to other list tools (like 'list_zones'), or indicate when filtering parameters are necessary versus optional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists WAF rules but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, safe to use, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, and output expectations, which are essential for an AI agent to invoke this tool correctly in a real-world scenario.
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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'for a zone', which hints at the required 'zone_name' parameter, but doesn't explain the optional 'rule_type' parameter or provide any details on format, constraints, or examples. This leaves key parameter semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('Web Application Firewall (WAF) rules for a zone'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_dns_records or list_page_rules by specifying WAF rules, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_security_rule tools which might overlap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid zone, or differentiate from other list tools (e.g., list_security_rule might handle similar data). This leaves the agent to infer usage from context 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'zones' entails (e.g., Cloudflare DNS zones). This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what zones are, how results are returned, or parameter usage, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective tool use.
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 mentions no parameters, while the schema has 2 parameters with 0% coverage. It doesn't explain 'include_details' or 'status_filter', failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. For 2 undocumented parameters, this is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all') and resource ('zones in the account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_dns_records' or 'list_ssl_certs' which also list resources, so it lacks sibling distinction.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool 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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool purges cache, implying a destructive operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, irreversible effects, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive cache operation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects, parameter details, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'for a zone', hinting at the 'zone_name' parameter, but does not explain 'purge_type' enum values or 'targets' array usage. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to address undocumented parameters adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Purge') and resource ('Cloudflare cache for a zone'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'delete' operations, which might handle different resources, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for cache purging compared to other tools like updating settings or deleting records, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs full updates). This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential information (update DNS record).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what fields can be updated, what the operation returns, error handling, or dependencies. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond the basic purpose.
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 all 11 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions only 'by ID' (hinting at record_id) but doesn't explain any other parameters like content, name, type, ttl, proxied, etc. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving most parameters semantically unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('existing DNS record by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from creation tools like 'create_dns_record' by specifying 'existing', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_security_rule' or 'update_zone_settings' beyond the DNS record focus.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing to know the record ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'list_dns_records' for finding IDs or 'delete_dns_record' for removal. The agent must 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' settings, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'full settings object' entails (e.g., format, nested structures). This leaves gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get full settings object for a zone') contributes directly to understanding, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (what a 'full settings object' includes), error scenarios, or operational context like authentication needs. For a tool interacting with cloud infrastructure, more detail is warranted to ensure reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage and defines one parameter 'zone_name'. It implies 'zone_name' identifies the zone to retrieve settings from, but doesn't specify format (e.g., domain name), validation, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description doesn't fully compensate, but the single parameter is straightforward, keeping it at baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('full settings object for a zone'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_zone_settings' by specifying retrieval of a complete settings object rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other read operations like 'list_dns_records' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid zone name), compare it to similar tools like 'list_zone_settings' or 'list_zones', or specify use cases (e.g., for configuration review). The description assumes context without explicit instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only and non-destructive behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all page rules') and resource. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 (2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits like pagination, and output expectations. For a list tool with filtering options, this leaves the agent under-informed about how to effectively invoke and interpret results.
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 mentions 'for a zone', which aligns with the required 'zone_name' parameter, adding some context. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't explain the optional 'status' parameter or its enum values ('active', 'disabled'). It partially compensates but leaves key parameters undocumented, meeting the baseline for moderate schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'page rules (redirects) for a zone', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_dns_records' or 'list_zones' by focusing on page rules. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_ssl_certs' or 'list_waf_rules' beyond the resource name, which is why it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication, compare to other list tools (e.g., 'list_dns_records'), or specify scenarios for filtering by status. This leaves the agent without context for selection among siblings.
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 it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'packs' entails (e.g., bundled certificates). The description is minimal and lacks necessary 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the action and resource. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., response format, error handling) and parameter semantics. For a tool with one parameter but no structured support, more context is needed to ensure reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'for a zone', which aligns with the 'zone_name' parameter in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't add meaning beyond this basic mapping. It doesn't explain what 'zone_name' should be (e.g., domain name, ID) or any constraints. With one parameter and low coverage, this is adequate but minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('SSL certificate packs for a zone'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like list_dns_records or list_zones by focusing on SSL certificates. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., list_waf_rules) beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or compare with other list tools (e.g., list_zones for zones vs. list_ssl_certs for certificates). Usage is implied by the resource focus, but explicit 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the settings are returned in, if there are rate limits, or if it's paginated. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'settings' include, how they're returned, or address the ambiguity with the sibling 'get_zone_settings' tool. For a tool that likely returns complex configuration data, more context is needed to help the agent use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'a specific zone' which aligns with the single parameter 'zone_name', but doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema already indicates. With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter is undocumented in both the schema and description. The description doesn't compensate for this gap by explaining what 'zone_name' represents or its expected format, so it meets the baseline for minimal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('all settings for a specific zone'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'cloudflare-dns-mcp_get_zone_settings', which appears to have a similar function, leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.
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. With a sibling tool named 'cloudflare-dns-mcp_get_zone_settings' that seems related, the agent is left without any indication of the differences or appropriate contexts for each tool, which could lead to incorrect tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context by explicitly labeling this as a 'destructive operation', which is crucial since no annotations are provided. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether changes are reversible, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 7 words, front-loading the core purpose ('Update settings for a zone') followed by critical behavioral warning ('destructive operation'). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive mutation tool with 2 parameters (one being a complex nested object), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It warns about destructiveness but doesn't explain what settings can be updated, how to format them, what happens on success/failure, or provide any examples. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool effectively.
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 carries full burden for explaining parameters but provides minimal help. It mentions 'settings' and 'zone_name' implicitly but doesn't explain what settings are available, their format, or what zone_name represents. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving both parameters poorly understood.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('settings for a zone'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_zone_settings' (read vs. write) and 'update_dns_record' (settings vs. DNS records). However, it doesn't specify which settings can be updated, leaving some ambiguity compared to more specific 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 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing zone_name from list_zones), compare to update_dns_record for DNS-specific changes, or clarify when settings updates are appropriate versus other operations. The agent must infer usage from context 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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the basic behavior (echoing payload) but lacks critical details: whether it requires authentication, rate limits, network dependencies, error responses, or side effects. For a connectivity tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Simple connectivity check') and key behavior ('returns the same payload'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete for basic use but lacks depth. It doesn't cover error handling, authentication needs, or integration context with Cloudflare services, which could be important for a connectivity check in this environment.
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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description adds meaningful context: it explains that the 'message' parameter is the 'payload sent by the client' and will be echoed back. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail the default value 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's function as a 'connectivity check' that 'returns the same payload sent by the client,' which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings focused on DNS, security, cache, and zone operations. However, it doesn't explicitly name the resource (e.g., 'Cloudflare service') or differentiate from potential non-sibling echo 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?
The description implies usage for connectivity testing but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other diagnostic tools or checking sibling tools like list_zones for availability). There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or scenarios where it's preferred over other methods.
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:

[![cloudflare_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jeffgolden/cloudflare_mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jeffgolden/cloudflare_mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cloudflare_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jeffgolden/cloudflare_mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jeffgolden/cloudflare_mcp)

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/jeffgolden/cloudflare_mcp'

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