JFrog MCP Server

Official

by jfrog

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Remote

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 JFrog resources like repositories, permission targets, projects, builds, packages, and vulnerabilities, with clear action verbs. However, some overlap exists between jfrog_get_package_info and jfrog_get_package_versions, as both provide package-related information, which could cause minor confusion in tool selection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent jfrog_verb_noun pattern with snake_case throughout, such as jfrog_create_local_repository and jfrog_list_permission_targets. This predictability makes it easy for agents to understand and navigate the toolset without naming conflicts.
Tool Count3/5
With 31 tools, the count is borderline high for a single server, potentially overwhelming for agents. While JFrog is a comprehensive platform, the toolset feels heavy and could benefit from consolidation or modularization to improve usability without sacrificing functionality.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides extensive coverage of the JFrog domain, including CRUD operations for repositories, permission targets, projects, and builds, along with querying, listing, and security features like vulnerability and package curation checks. No significant gaps are apparent, supporting a wide range of workflows.
Average 3/5 across 31 of 31 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be, leaving significant gaps 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point with a single sentence, making it efficient. However, it could be more front-loaded with key details, and the phrase 'one or many' is somewhat redundant given the array parameter, slightly reducing impact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'summary' includes, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits, making it inadequate for effective agent use despite the simple parameter schema.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'paths' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'one or many' artifacts, which aligns with the array type but doesn't enhance understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('Get') and resource ('summary of artifacts'), but it's vague about what 'summary' entails and doesn't differentiate from siblings like jfrog_get_package_info or jfrog_get_vulnerability_info. It specifies 'one or many' artifacts, which adds some scope but remains general.
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 is provided. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing artifact paths, and doesn't mention sibling tools for comparison, leaving usage 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns a runtime cluster, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens if the cluster ID is invalid. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized. However, it's front-loaded with the core action but could benefit from slightly more detail to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., cluster details, status), error conditions, or behavioral aspects. For a tool with one parameter and no structured support, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
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 100%, with the parameter 'clusterId' documented as 'The ID of the cluster to retrieve'. The description adds no meaning beyond this, as it only repeats the parameter concept without additional details like format constraints or examples. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'return a runtime cluster by id' states the basic action (return/retrieve) and resource (runtime cluster), but it's vague about what 'return' entails (e.g., fetch details, metadata). It distinguishes from siblings like 'jfrog_list_runtime_clusters' by specifying retrieval of a single cluster, but lacks specificity about the nature of the returned data.
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 cluster ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'jfrog_list_runtime_clusters' for bulk retrieval. The description implies usage when you have a specific cluster ID, but this is inferred rather than explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It mentions 'update' but doesn't clarify if this is a partial or full update, permission requirements, side effects, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with security implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it efficient. However, it's slightly under-specified given the tool's complexity, as it could benefit from more detail without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, usage context, and expected outcomes, leaving critical gaps for an agent to operate safely and effectively.
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 67%, with parameters 'name' and 'resourceType' described but 'resource' lacking a description. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it doesn't compensate for the coverage gap but doesn't worsen it either, meeting the baseline.
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 action ('update') and target ('specific resource type within a permission target'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what 'update' entails or differentiate from siblings like 'jfrog_update_permission_target' or 'jfrog_replace_permission_resource', leaving ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include 'jfrog_update_permission_target' (likely broader updates) and 'jfrog_replace_permission_resource' (possibly full replacement), but the description offers no comparison 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 carries full burden. It mentions 'replace' but doesn't clarify behavioral aspects like whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, if it's idempotent, or how it differs from update/delete operations. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'replace' means operationally, what happens to existing data, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with critical gaps in understanding.
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 67%, with two parameters (name, resourceType) described and one (resource) lacking description. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, such as explaining the resource structure or resourceType enum values. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema provides moderate coverage.
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 action ('replace') and target ('specific resource type within a permission target'), which is clear but somewhat vague. It doesn't specify what 'replace' entails operationally or distinguish it from sibling tools like jfrog_update_permission_resource or jfrog_delete_permission_resource, leaving ambiguity about when to use each.
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. With siblings like jfrog_update_permission_resource and jfrog_delete_permission_resource, the description offers no context for choosing between them, such as whether this tool fully overwrites resources or handles specific 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, potential side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies platform permissions.
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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable at a basic level despite lacking detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex permission management tool with 4 parameters (including nested objects), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'permission target' is, how resources are structured, what the expected response looks like, or any behavioral constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning all 4 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about parameters beyond implying a 'permission target' is created. It doesn't explain what 'name', 'resources', 'created_by', or 'modified_by' represent or how they should be structured, leaving critical gaps.
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 permission target in the JFrog platform'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'jfrog_update_permission_target' or 'jfrog_delete_permission_target' beyond the basic verb, missing an opportunity to clarify scope 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'jfrog_update_permission_target' and 'jfrog_delete_permission_target', there's no indication of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names 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 mentions creation and proxying but lacks critical details like required permissions, whether this is a mutating operation, potential side effects, error handling, or rate limits. For a complex creation tool with 65 parameters, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 understand at a glance.
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 high complexity (65 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and low schema coverage), the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or usage context, leaving the agent poorly equipped to handle this tool effectively. The conciseness comes at the cost of 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?
Schema description coverage is only 17%, meaning most parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the general purpose, failing to compensate for the low coverage. It doesn't explain key parameters like 'key', 'packageType', or 'url' beyond what little the schema provides.
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 a new remote repository') and the resource ('in Artifactory'), with the specific purpose 'to proxy external package registries'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'jfrog_create_local_repository' and 'jfrog_create_virtual_repository' by specifying 'remote', though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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 like local or virtual repositories, nor does it mention prerequisites such as required permissions or system configuration. It states the purpose but offers no contextual 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 but offers minimal information. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. For a creation tool with 5 required parameters, 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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a creation tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place with zero 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?
For a creation tool with 5 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, potential constraints (like project key format mentioned in schema but not description), authentication requirements, or error handling. The agent lacks critical context for successful invocation.
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 100%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project', 'Storage quota in bytes (-1 for unlimited)'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 project in the JFrog platform'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'jfrog_list_projects' or 'jfrog_get_specific_project' by specifying creation rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'jfrog_create_local_repository' 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., authentication requirements), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing projects), or refer to related tools like 'jfrog_list_projects' for checking existing projects before creation. 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 full burden. It states 'Create' implying a write/mutation operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational 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?
Single sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place by specifying creation, resource type, and aggregation function efficiently.
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 complex mutation tool with 24 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information on success/failure behavior, return values, error conditions, and practical usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
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 high at 88%, providing good documentation for most parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most semantics.
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 ('virtual repository in Artifactory') with the specific function of 'aggregates multiple repositories'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'jfrog_create_local_repository' and 'jfrog_create_remote_repository' by specifying the virtual type, but doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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 local or remote repositories. The description mentions aggregation but doesn't explain scenarios where a virtual repository is preferred, 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Delete,' implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, side effects (e.g., whether this affects associated artifacts), error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool without annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for brevity and clarity in structure.
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 (implied by 'Delete'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to address critical aspects like required permissions, potential impacts, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with incomplete information for safe and effective use in a complex environment with 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('name' and 'resourceType'), including an enum for 'resourceType'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the target ('a specific resource type from a permission target'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jfrog_delete_permission_target' or 'jfrog_replace_permission_resource', which would require more specificity about what distinguishes deleting a resource type versus the entire target or replacing 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. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose this over 'jfrog_delete_permission_target' (for deleting the entire target) or 'jfrog_replace_permission_resource' (for updating resources), leaving the agent without context for selection among 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if deletion is irreversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting access controls), or provides confirmation feedback. 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.
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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like irreversible effects, permission requirements, error handling, or what happens post-deletion (e.g., confirmation). This leaves significant gaps for safe agent 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 input schema has 100% coverage, fully documenting the single 'name' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the target is identified by name, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating 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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a permission target from the JFrog platform'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'jfrog_delete_permission_resource' by specifying the target type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 admin permissions), when deletion is appropriate, or refer to related tools like 'jfrog_list_permission_targets' for selection or 'jfrog_update_permission_target' for modification instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving a 'list of known vulnerabilities,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters in the schema). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning key parameters or constraints, which would improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of vulnerability data retrieval and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields), how pagination works with 'pageCount' and 'pageSize', or any dependencies or prerequisites. This leaves the agent poorly equipped to use the tool effectively in real scenarios.
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 no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all parameters. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameters, but the description doesn't enhance understanding with additional context or examples.
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 purpose: 'get the list of known vulnerabilities affecting a specific version of an open source package.' It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('vulnerabilities'), and scope ('specific version of an open source package'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jfrog_get_vulnerability_info' or 'jfrog_get_package_info', which prevents a perfect 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 provides minimal guidance with 'Useful for when you need...', which implies context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or references to sibling tools are included, leaving the agent with little direction on tool selection in this crowded namespace.
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 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' entail (e.g., JSON structure, permissions). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves beyond its 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.
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's front-loaded with the core action ('Get details'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding, with zero 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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves details. It doesn't explain what 'details' include (e.g., permission settings, metadata), potential side effects, or response format. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively.
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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('name' and 'resourceType'), including an enum for 'resourceType'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, but since the schema is well-documented, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't degrade understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific resource type within a permission target'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jfrog_get_permission_target' or 'jfrog_get_artifacts_summary', which might also retrieve permission-related details, leaving some ambiguity about its unique scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this should be used instead of 'jfrog_get_permission_target' for granular resource details or as a follow-up to listing permission targets. The description implies usage for retrieving details but offers no context 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.
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 it's a read operation ('Get details'), but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' includes. The description is too vague to fully inform agent 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's front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no 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?
For a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'details' includes, potential response formats, or error handling. The agent lacks complete context to use this tool effectively despite the good parameter documentation.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optionally scoped to a project', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific build by name'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jfrog_list_builds' beyond the 'specific' vs 'list' distinction, which is somewhat implied but not explicitly stated.
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 minimal guidance with 'optionally scoped to a project', but lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, prerequisites, or comparisons to alternatives like 'jfrog_list_builds'. No exclusions or detailed context 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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions what information is returned ('including its affected packages and versions') but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from included information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return information but lacks completeness. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or error conditions, which are important for a tool that fetches vulnerability data. The description is adequate as a minimum but has clear gaps in contextual information.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (cve_id, pageCount, pageSize) with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between pageCount and pageSize or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 purpose: 'get a specific vulnerability information, including its affected packages and versions.' It specifies the verb 'get' and the resource 'vulnerability information' with additional detail about what information is included. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jfrog_get_package_version_vulnerabilities' which might serve a similar purpose.
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 minimal guidance with 'Useful for when you need to get a specific vulnerability information,' which implies usage context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to sibling tools is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'security and operational status' as part of the output, which adds some context beyond a basic list. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), potential performance impact, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core action, scope, and key output details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse and understand 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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on behavioral traits like safety, performance, or error handling, doesn't explain the relationship between parameters and the described 'security and operational status', and provides no output format guidance. For a runtime monitoring tool with multiple configuration options, more context is needed to use it effectively.
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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond implying filtering and pagination through 'list all' and the mention of 'security and operational status' which loosely relates to the 'statistics' parameter. It doesn't explain how filters work, what timePeriod values are valid, or how statistics integrate with security status. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 the resource 'all running container images across runtime clusters', specifying scope and including 'security and operational status' as additional output details. It distinguishes from siblings like jfrog_list_repositories or jfrog_list_builds by focusing on runtime images rather than static artifacts or builds, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with jfrog_list_runtime_clusters which lists clusters themselves.
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, ideal scenarios, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like jfrog_get_runtime_specific_cluster for detailed cluster info or jfrog_get_package_version_vulnerabilities for deeper security insights. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly framed.
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 mentions 'return a list' but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond implied by parameters), or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with potential operational impacts.
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 no wasted words, clearly stating the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
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 a list operation with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like pagination handling, error conditions, or return structure, leaving gaps for effective tool 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters (limit and next_key). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as default values or usage context, meeting the baseline for high 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 action ('return a list') and resource ('all my runtime clusters in the jfrog platform'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jfrog_get_runtime_specific_cluster' or other list tools (e.g., 'jfrog_list_projects'), missing full 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. For instance, it doesn't mention when to choose this over 'jfrog_get_runtime_specific_cluster' or other list tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool sets properties with optional recursion, implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether it overwrites existing properties, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
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 ('Set properties on a folder in Artifactory') and appends the optional feature. There is no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response details. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.
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 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (folderPath, properties, recursive). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional recursive application,' which aligns with the schema's recursive parameter. No additional syntax, format, or constraints are provided, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set properties') and target ('on a folder in Artifactory'), with the optional recursive feature mentioned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'jfrog_create_local_repository' or 'jfrog_get_package_info' by focusing on property management rather than creation or retrieval operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential property-related siblings that might exist in other contexts.
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 specific permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for files instead of folders), or suggest other tools for related tasks like getting properties. The optional recursive feature is noted but without context on its implications.
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. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, error conditions, or what the response contains. For a complex permission management tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear name and purpose, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing important contextual 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 complex mutation tool with nested parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a permission target is, what fields can be updated, what the expected response looks like, or any behavioral constraints. The combination of complex schema and complete lack of behavioral context makes this description inadequate.
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 50%, with only the 'name' parameter documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain the structure of the 'target' object, the meaning of 'resources', or how permissions are configured. The baseline is 3 since schema coverage is moderate, but the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'target' 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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing permission target in the JFrog platform'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'jfrog_create_permission_target' by specifying 'existing' rather than new creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'jfrog_update_permission_resource' or 'jfrog_replace_permission_resource'.
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 like 'jfrog_update_permission_resource' or 'jfrog_replace_permission_resource'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing permission target), nor does it specify what constitutes a valid update versus when other tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates a read-only check ('Check if... ready and functioning'), it lacks details on what 'ready and functioning' entails (e.g., API responsiveness, service health), potential side effects (e.g., if it triggers diagnostics), error handling, or output 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, clear sentence: 'Check if JFrog platform is ready and functioning or not'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero redundant words, and appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place by conveying essential intent without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'ready and functioning' means operationally, what the output might look like (e.g., boolean status, detailed health report), or any dependencies (e.g., network connectivity). For a tool that could inform critical decisions about platform usability, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate—it efficiently avoids unnecessary parameter discussion for a parameterless tool.
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 purpose: 'Check if JFrog platform is ready and functioning or not'. It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('JFrog platform'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like health-check or status tools that might exist, though its focus on 'platform readiness' is reasonably distinct from the many create/get/list operations in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., authentication status), timing (e.g., after deployment or before operations), or related tools (e.g., if other tools might provide similar status information). This leaves the agent without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate keys, or any rate limits. It also doesn't describe the response format or success/failure conditions, leaving 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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point with zero wasted 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?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource type but doesn't address important contextual aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, or what the tool returns. The 100% schema coverage helps, but behavioral context is incomplete for a mutation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. This meets the baseline for high 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 ('Create') and resource ('new local repository in artifactory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_remote_repository' and 'create_virtual_repository' by specifying 'local', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other repository creation 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, when local repositories are appropriate compared to remote/virtual ones, or any dependencies on other tools like project creation. 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 mentions AQL supports 'complex criteria, sorting, pagination, and more,' which hints at functionality, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., JSON structure). This is inadequate for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence clearly stating the purpose. The second sentence elaborates on AQL's capabilities without redundancy. However, it could be more concise by integrating the elaboration into the first sentence or omitting generic praise like 'powerful.'
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 (8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error conditions, authentication requirements, and practical examples, which are essential for an agent to use this tool effectively. The high schema coverage does not compensate for these missing contextual elements.
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 100% description coverage, providing detailed parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implicitly referencing parameters like 'sorting' and 'pagination' without explaining them. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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 purpose: 'Execute an Artifactory Query Language (AQL) query to search for artifacts, builds, or other entities in JFrog Artifactory.' It specifies the verb ('execute'), resource ('AQL query'), and target ('JFrog Artifactory'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like jfrog_list_repositories or jfrog_get_artifacts_summary by focusing on query execution rather than listing or summarizing.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions AQL's capabilities but does not compare it to other search or listing tools in the sibling set, such as jfrog_list_builds or jfrog_get_artifacts_summary, leaving the agent without clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves detailed information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it correctly indicates a non-destructive action.
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 ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific permission target'). There is zero wasted language, and it directly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about what 'detailed information' entails, but it meets the bare minimum for a simple read operation.
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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'name' documented as 'The name of the permission target to retrieve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format constraints or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 'get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific permission target', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'jfrog_list_permission_targets' by specifying retrieval of detailed info for a single target rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'get' tools (e.g., 'jfrog_get_permission_resource'), 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 (e.g., needing the permission target name), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'jfrog_get_permission_resource' or 'jfrog_list_permission_targets'. Usage is implied only by the action 'get detailed information', with no explicit context or alternatives stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'get' operation which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' includes. For a 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 communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with one well-documented parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more context about what 'detailed information' includes and any behavioral constraints. The description meets basic requirements but could be more complete.
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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single 'project_key' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 detailed information') and target resource ('about a specific project in the JFrog platform'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jfrog_list_projects' which likely provides a list rather than details for a single project.
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 like 'jfrog_list_projects' or other 'get_' tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't specify permissions required, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what 'all my build' entails (e.g., scope, filters). This is inadequate for a 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.
Conciseness4/5
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. However, it could be slightly more polished (e.g., 'returns' instead of 'return'), and it lacks structural elements like bullet points, but it's appropriately concise for a simple tool.
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 (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions or pagination, and with no annotations, it should provide more context for the agent to use it effectively, though it's not entirely inadequate.
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 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.
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 ('return a list') and resource ('all my build in the jfrog platform'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'jfrog_get_specific_build' or 'jfrog_list_projects', which would require explicit differentiation for a perfect 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'jfrog_get_specific_build' for retrieving a single build or 'jfrog_list_projects' for listing other resources, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get a list'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but fails to mention critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to handle the tool effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 (list operation with 2 optional parameters) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination behavior, error handling) and return values, which are important for a list tool. This results in a middling score.
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 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'cursor' (pagination) and 'limit' (result count). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating 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 action ('Get a list') and resource ('all permission targets in the JFrog platform'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jfrog_get_permission_target' (which likely retrieves a single target), leaving room for minor ambiguity in 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 sibling tools like 'jfrog_get_permission_target' for single-target retrieval or 'jfrog_list_repositories' for other list operations, nor does it specify any prerequisites or contextual triggers 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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'publicly available information' and lists return fields, but doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.
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 efficiently structured in two sentences: one stating the purpose and context, another listing the specific information returned. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the core purpose. Minor grammatical issues ('it will provide' could be 'provides') don't significantly impact 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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It clearly states what information is returned but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling or performance characteristics. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more operational context for a tool that interacts with external package repositories.
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 100%, providing clear documentation for all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'package' generally but doesn't clarify parameter relationships or usage patterns. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'get publicly available information about a software package' and lists specific data points returned. It distinguishes from siblings like jfrog_get_package_versions or jfrog_get_package_version_vulnerabilities by focusing on general package metadata rather than version-specific details. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with jfrog_get_package_curation_status, which might overlap in some contexts.
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 context with 'when you need to get publicly available information about a software package' and lists what information is provided. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like jfrog_get_package_versions (for version lists) or jfrog_get_package_curation_status (for curation status). The guidance is present but not comprehensive regarding sibling differentiation.
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 mentions the tool can 'filter based on version vulnerability status,' which adds behavioral context beyond basic retrieval. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or pagination for large result sets. The description is insufficient for a mutation-sensitive agent.
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, stating the primary purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful context about publication dates and filtering. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating core functionality from optional features).
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 no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a read-focused tool. It covers the purpose and some behavioral aspects (filtering), but lacks details on return values, error cases, or authentication needs. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured safety hints, it should provide more context to be fully helpful.
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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('name' and 'type' with enum values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 purpose: 'get a list of versions of a publicly available package' and 'tell you each version's publication date.' It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('versions of a publicly available package'), and key capability (publication dates). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'jfrog_get_package_info' or 'jfrog_get_package_version_vulnerabilities,' which may overlap in functionality.
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 context: 'when you need to get a list of versions' and mentions filtering by 'version vulnerability status,' which hints at when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'jfrog_get_package_info' or 'jfrog_get_package_version_vulnerabilities,' and doesn't state any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get a list'), implying non-destructive behavior, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency, as it doesn't cover key behavioral traits beyond the basic read intent.
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 details. It uses clear language ('Get a list of all environments types... with their details') and includes an example ('e.g. dev, prod, etc.') that adds value without verbosity. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks context on behavioral aspects like permissions or output format. For a simple list tool, this might suffice, but without annotations or output schema, it leaves gaps in understanding how to interpret results or handle errors, making it only partially 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 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
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 purpose: 'Get a list of all environments types (e.g. dev, prod, etc.) in the JFrog platform with their details.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('environments types'), and scope ('in the JFrog platform'), distinguishing it from siblings like jfrog_list_repositories or jfrog_list_projects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all list tools, such as jfrog_list_builds, though the resource type is 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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, such as when environment details are needed versus other list tools. Without such guidance, an agent might struggle to choose between this and other list tools like jfrog_list_repositories or jfrog_list_projects.
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 a list' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what 'details' include, potential rate limits, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, for a list operation with no annotations, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or behavioral traits, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively in complex scenarios.
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 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead, which aligns well with the schema's completeness.
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 ('Get') and resource ('list of all projects in the JFrog platform with their details'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jfrog_get_specific_project' or 'jfrog_list_repositories', which would require mentioning it returns all projects versus a specific one or other resource types.
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 scenarios like needing a comprehensive overview versus filtered results, or prerequisites such as authentication or permissions required to access project lists, leaving the agent without 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover important aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if no repositories match filters. For a tool with no annotations, 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 front-loads the core purpose ('List all repositories in Artifactory') followed by the key filtering capabilities. Every word serves a purpose with zero waste or redundancy.
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 read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, pagination, or error handling, which would be helpful for complete understanding.
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 100%, with clear descriptions for each parameter in the schema itself. The description adds value by summarizing the filtering options ('optional filtering by type, package type, and project'), but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already documented in the schema 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 ('List all repositories') and resource ('in Artifactory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like jfrog_list_builds or jfrog_list_projects by specifying repositories, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other repository-related tools like jfrog_create_local_repository.
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 context by mentioning 'optional filtering by type, package type, and project', suggesting when to use it for filtered vs. unfiltered listing. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like jfrog_execute_aql_query for more complex queries 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return values (approved, blocked, inconclusive), which is useful behavioral context, but does not mention other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences: one stating the purpose and another detailing the return values, with no wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a read operation with three required parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains the purpose and return values. However, it could improve by adding more behavioral context like authentication or error handling to fully compensate for the lack of structured 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter relationships or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('checking') and resource ('curation status of a specific package version'), distinguishing it from siblings like jfrog_get_package_info or jfrog_get_package_version_vulnerabilities by focusing on curation status rather than general info or vulnerabilities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when checking curation status, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like jfrog_get_package_info or jfrog_get_package_version_vulnerabilities, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for use.
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-jfrog MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jfrog/mcp-jfrog/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jfrog/mcp-jfrog)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/jfrog/mcp-jfrog'

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