ast-editor
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v2.12.1
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with explicit 'Use this when' and 'Don't use this when' guidance that eliminates ambiguity. For example, add_comment_before vs replace_leading_comment vs replace_docstring are carefully distinguished, and tools for different data structures (dict vs array) are separated. The descriptions create clear boundaries between overlapping operations.
Naming Consistency5/5All tools follow a consistent verb_noun or verb_preposition_noun pattern throughout (add_comment_before, add_field, add_import, replace_function_body, etc.). The naming convention is perfectly uniform with snake_case used consistently across all 32 tools, making the tool set highly predictable and readable.
Tool Count3/5With 32 tools, the count feels heavy for an AST editor, though each tool appears specialized. While many tools earn their place through distinct operations, the high number could overwhelm agents and suggests potential over-specialization. A typical well-scoped server might have 15-25 tools; 32 is borderline excessive but not extreme.
Completeness5/5The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for AST editing across multiple languages and file types. It includes full CRUD operations for symbols, imports, comments, parameters, and configuration data, plus read-only analysis tools. There are no obvious gaps—every editing need appears addressed with appropriate granularity, and the domain is fully covered without dead ends.
Average 4.5/5 across 32 of 32 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention error handling (e.g., key not found, invalid content), file system side effects, or whether the operation is destructive. This is insufficient for a file-modifying tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a few lines and an example. Each sentence serves a purpose. However, the example could be more detailed to improve clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (content unknown). The description lacks details on return values, error conditions, or file writing behavior, making it incomplete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It only provides an example with 'target' and 'content' but does not define them or explain 'file_path'. The example is too minimal to convey accurate parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool replaces the value of an existing key in JSON, YAML, or TOML files. It specifies the verb, resource, and file types, and distinguishes from sibling tools like add_key and append_to_array.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (key exists) and when not to use (key missing or array modification), with alternative tool names. This provides clear guidance for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. It explains that the body and decorators are preserved. However, it doesn't mention error handling, permissions, or what happens if the target doesn't exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with only a few sentences and an example. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses bullet-like structure for usage guidelines. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0% schema description coverage and an output schema not detailed, the description should provide more context. It lacks explicit parameter definitions and does not address return values or edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explicitly define each parameter. While the example shows target and new_signature, file_path is not described. More parameter explanation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Replace only the signature of a function, preserving its body and decorators.' It specifies the verb and resource and distinguishes from siblings like replace_function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit guidance on when to use (changing parameters, return type, or function name without modifying body) and when not to use (use replace_function for body changes, add_parameter/remove_parameter for single parameter changes). Alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions placement convention (top of class body, fields-before-methods), but does not specify whether it checks for duplicates, permissions, or side effects. Some behavioral context is given, but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear verb+resource structure, a usage guideline, and a concrete example. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low schema coverage and absence of annotations, the description should compensate more. It provides good purpose and usage but leaves file_path unexplained. The output schema exists but is not referenced. The tool is simple, so basic usage is clear, but completeness is moderate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has three parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only provides an example that explains class_target and content implicitly, but does not describe file_path at all. The example adds some meaning for two parameters, but the missing explanation for file_path leaves a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it adds a field/attribute/member at the top of a class body, with specific language for Python, JS/TS, and C++. It distinguishes itself from add_method, making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use (adding class attributes, fields, or member variables) and when not to use (adding methods), directing to add_method as an alternative. This provides clear guidance on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Explains 'stripped text equality' and target semantics for different file types. But does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if value not found), side effects, or idempotency. No annotation provided so description carries the burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with main action, format notes, usage guidelines, and examples. Moderate length, front-loaded. Could be slightly more concise but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers main use cases and target formats. But missing return value description (though output schema exists but not shown) and error handling. Does not mention what happens if value not found or if file is read-only.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description adds significant meaning: explains target as dotted path or variable name, value_match as stripped text equality. Provides examples for TOML and Python. However, file_path is not described.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action: remove first matching element from an array/list. It specifies supported formats (JSON/YAML/TOML and Python) and distinguishes from sibling delete_key.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use this when:' and 'Don't use this when:' with a clear alternative (delete_key). Provides example contexts for different file types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses error conditions (raises if not found or appears more than once), suggests making the match unique, and specifies byte-identical matching. Could mention permissions or side effects, but sufficient for a deletion tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with sections and examples. Not overly verbose, but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but still effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers error conditions, usage guidelines, and examples. Has output schema, so return values not needed. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no enums, the description is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description indirectly explains target and snippet via examples and context. Does not explain file_path. With no param descriptions in schema, description could add more detail, but the examples help infer meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it deletes a byte-identical snippet inside a named function/method body, scoped to the target's body. It distinguishes from delete_symbol by noting when to use the other tool for deleting entire functions/classes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use (remove specific statement/block/line inside function body, or delete entry from inline object) and when-not-to-use (use delete_symbol for entire function). Includes examples demonstrating typical usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the action and provides an example, but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or what happens if the target doesn't exist. Slightly above average but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear structure: purpose, usage guidelines, and example. It is well-organized but the example adds minimal overhead. Slightly above average due to efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers most essential aspects. However, the omission of 'file_path' parameter explanation leaves a gap, preventing a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so description must explain parameters. The example explains 'target' and 'content' but does not explain 'file_path'. This is a significant gap, though the example helps infer usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool replaces an entire function definition (signature, body, decorators). It distinguishes from sibling tools like replace_function_body and replace_signature by specifying what not to use it for.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides when to use (rewriting top-to-bottom) and when not to use (only body or signature changes), with named alternatives. This is excellent guidance for agent decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals the insertion position (end of class body) but lacks details on side effects, validation, or file modification behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: three short sentences plus an example. Each sentence is purposeful and front-loaded with the core operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers operation, usage guidance, and example. With an output schema present, return values are not needed. Minor gaps: no mention that the class must exist or that file is modified in place.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but description partially compensates with a concrete example that clarifies class_target and content. However, file_path is not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Add a new method at the end of a class body.' The verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings add_field and add_top_level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use with named alternatives: use for adding methods to classes, not for fields (use add_field) or top-level functions (use add_top_level).
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?
Description mentions 'Leaves the body untouched' but lacks details on error cases, permissions, or side effects. No annotations exist to supplement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise, front-loaded purpose statement, followed by usage guidance and a clear example. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. With output schema existing, return values are likely covered. Could add error conditions but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining the 'position' parameter defaults and valid values, and provides an example illustrating 'target' and 'parameter'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Add a parameter to a function signature' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like replace_signature and remove_parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly explains when to use (add one or two parameters) and when not to use (replace signature or change body), with specific alternative tools named.
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?
While the description explains the default behavior of removing leading comments and the include_leading_comments parameter, it lacks details on side effects, permissions, error handling, or reversibility. Without annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: purpose first, then details, usage guidelines, and examples. Every sentence adds value with minimal verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers usage, parameter behavior, and alternatives. It could include error scenarios but is sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the 'target' and 'include_leading_comments' parameters with examples and default behavior, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. The 'file_path' parameter is not explicitly described but its purpose is implied.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool deletes an entire function or class definition along with its decorators. It differentiates from siblings by naming alternative tools like delete_key, remove_import, and delete_in_body.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit 'Use this when' and 'Don't use this when' sections with specific alternatives, providing clear context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It explains the matching logic ('stripped text equality') and provides an example, but does not mention error handling (e.g., what if the import is not found), return value, or side effects like file modification. This leaves some 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: three short sentences plus an example. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by usage guidelines and a concrete example. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality and usage. It does not detail the output schema, but that is acceptable as the schema itself provides that information. Could mention what happens on success/failure, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It describes 'import_text' as the exact import line to match (stripped) and provides an example. 'file_path' is not described but is self-explanatory. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Remove a matching import statement from a source file.' It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'remove_import_name' by specifying that this tool removes whole import lines, not individual names from multi-name imports.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use ('remove an unused import') and when not to use ('remove one name from a multi-name import'), with a direct reference to the alternative tool 'remove_import_name'. This provides clear guidance for the AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'Leaves the body untouched' to indicate non-destructive nature. Could mention behavior when parameter not found, but otherwise clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with a clear structure: purpose statement, usage guidelines, example. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a simple 3-parameter tool with an output schema (not shown), the description covers essential aspects. Could mention error handling (e.g., missing parameter), but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description uses an example to illustrate parameter usage (target, parameter_name). However, file_path is not described beyond being required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool removes a parameter by name from a function signature, which is specific and distinct from siblings like 'replace_signature'. The example clarifies the target and parameter_name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit 'Use this when' and 'Don't use this when' sections provide clear context and name the alternative tool 'replace_signature', aiding correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description fully shoulders transparency. It states read-only behavior, syntactic-only analysis, and the limitation that results may include unrelated identifiers. This sets accurate expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear flow: purpose, behavioral note, usage guidance, example. However, the first sentence is slightly verbose. Overall efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and no annotations, the description covers essential aspects: input parameters, behavior, output format, and usage context. The output schema existence is noted but not detailed; however, the description provides enough for an agent to use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that 'target' is the identifier name to search for, but does not explain 'file_path' format or provide detailed syntax. The example helps somewhat but is insufficient for complete understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns all occurrences of an identifier in a source file, formatted as 'line N: <source line>'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_symbols by focusing on references rather than definitions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly describes when to use (renaming/refactoring) and when not to use (cross-file or scope-aware analysis), with a clear alternative (full language server). This helps the agent decide correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description discloses read-only behavior ('Read-only') and the return format. It does not cover error cases like missing files or unsupported extensions, but for a simple read tool, this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with front-loaded key information in two short paragraphs and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, usage context, and an example. No additional details are necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter file_path has no schema description (0% coverage). The description provides an example showing an absolute path, but does not specify that the path must be absolute or exist, leaving ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns all import statements in a source file as a multi-line string, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_import and remove_import with an explicit purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use (e.g., before adding an import) and when not to use (e.g., adding/removing imports), and names the appropriate sibling tools (add_import, remove_import).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses edge cases: removing the last name removes entire line if no other bindings, and raises error for invalid fragments. Could mention permissions or side effects, but current coverage is strong.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise and well-structured with bullet points and examples. A few lines could be streamlined, but overall it efficiently conveys necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, parameters, usage, and error cases. Does not explain output, but an output schema is present. For a code-modifying tool, it provides sufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, but description compensates with examples and clarifies the meaning of 'module' and 'name' via Python and TS examples. 'file_path' is self-explanatory but lacks explicit description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool removes a name from a named-import statement. Differentiates from sibling 'remove_import' by specifying it's for single name removal, not entire line.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (removing a single name from a multi-name import) and when not to (use 'remove_import' instead). Provides language-specific examples and explains error conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it preserves signature and decorators, implying no external side effects. Could mention file overwriting but still adds sufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: two short paragraphs and an example. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given many sibling tools and an output schema (not shown), the description is complete: it defines use cases, provides an example, and distinguishes from alternatives. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. Example explains 'target' and 'content', but 'file_path' is only implied in the tool name. Basic understanding is possible, but not all parameters are explicitly described.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it replaces only the function body while preserving signature and decorators, using the specific verb 'Replace'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like replace_signature and replace_function by explicitly noting what is preserved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use (changing implementation, stable interface) and when not to (changing parameters/return type), naming alternative tools replace_signature and replace_function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains behavior for different file types (JSON/YAML/TOML vs Python), target format (dotted path vs variable name), and value formatting (with quoting examples). However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., what if target path does not exist) or whether the operation is idempotent. Still, the provided details go well beyond a generic statement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, then file-specific notes, usage guidance, and examples. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. The examples are placed at the end without bloating the core message.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers input semantics well for the given complexity (multiple file types). However, it omits details like error scenarios or whether appending to a non-existent array creates it. Given the good annotations from siblings, it is still fairly complete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description adds meaning for 'target' (explains dotted path vs variable name) and 'value' (literal string with quoting examples). 'file_path' is not elaborated, but its purpose is obvious. The description partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool appends a literal value to an array/list, specifies file types (JSON, YAML, TOML, Python), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'add_key' by explicitly saying not to use it for key-value pairs. The verb 'append' plus resource 'array/list' is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use this when: You want to add an item to a list... Don't use this when: You're adding a key-value pair -> use add_key.' This clearly sets the context and points to an alternative, making it easy for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description fully explains the three operations, including error conditions (raises on 'add' if existing) and comment syntax requirements. Does not mention file system effects but that is implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with sections for operations, usage, and examples. Front-loaded with purpose. A bit lengthy but each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (three operations, multiple parameters, error conditions), the description is thorough. Provides examples and covers all key aspects. Output schema likely covers return details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by detailing the 'op' enum values, the 'comment' parameter behavior per operation, and provides examples. Does not explicitly describe 'file_path' or 'target' but they are understandable from context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it edits the contiguous leading-comment block above a named symbol, and distinguishes itself from siblings like replace_docstring and replace_in_body by specifying different use cases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use ('when you want to document, update, or delete a leading comment') and when not to use ('Don't use this when: ...') with named alternatives, providing clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Declares read-only nature, explains depth behavior thoroughly, but lacks details on error handling or file path expectations. Still very good.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise, well-structured with bullet points and examples. Information is front-loaded. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists so return values are covered. Description covers depth, usage, and examples. Could mention error handling or file path constraints, but overall quite complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides extensive detail on depth parameter, and example usage for target. Could be more explicit about target format and file_path requirements, but adds significant value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns source text for a single named symbol, includes details on depth levels, and differentiates from sibling tools like list_symbols. The examples reinforce the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use (need to read a specific symbol) and when not (structural overview -> list_symbols; imports -> read_imports). Also advises to pick narrowest depth.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses scoping to function body to prevent accidental matches, and raises on missing/duplicate snippet. It implies mutation but doesn't explicitly state file-saving behavior; however, output schema exists to cover return values. Overall good transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sentences: purpose first, then error conditions, usage guidelines, and a concrete example. No redundant or irrelevant information; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 required params and existence of output schema, description covers purpose, usage, error cases, and example. It does not explain return value (but output schema exists) or prerequisites (e.g., file must exist, target must be defined), but these are implied. Adequate for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates by explaining each parameter: file_path, target (name of function/method), old_snippet and new_snippet (byte-identical snippets). An example illustrates usage. Could add more on file_path requirements, but sufficient for clear understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool replaces a byte-identical snippet inside a named function/method body without affecting surrounding code. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like replace_function_body (entire body replacement) and Edit (for sub-expressions in method chains).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides when to use (changing a specific statement in a long function) and when not to use (entire body -> use replace_function_body; sub-expression in method chain -> use Edit). Also explains error conditions (raises if not found or duplicate) and how to disambiguate (add more context).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description covers deduplication, placement, and gives examples across languages. Missing details on error handling or file modification confirmation, but still strong.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then examples. Every sentence adds value; no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and presence of output schema, description fully addresses selection and invocation needs with usage, examples, and sibling differentiation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% coverage; description adds meaning by explaining import_text with multi-language examples and implying file_path usage. Sufficient for understanding parameter roles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool adds an import statement with deduplication and placement details, and distinguishes from sibling add_import_name via specific verb+resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use ('needs import not already referenced') and when not to use (adding to existing multi-name import → use add_import_name), providing clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses idempotency and effect on code; no annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Could mention error handling, but sufficient for typical use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with sections, examples, and bullet points; every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Fully explains tool's purpose, usage, and behavior; output schema exists but description focuses on input and effect, which is appropriate for a simple mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has zero descriptions; description adds meaning for all parameters with clear examples (module is import source, name is the symbol). Completes missing schema info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Add a name to an existing named-import statement', specifies languages (Python, JS/TS) with examples, and distinguishes from siblings like add_import.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides when to use (existing named-import) and when not to use (use add_import for new imports or default/namespace imports), with alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains different behavior per file type, required value syntax, and parent_target usage. Does not cover error handling or permissions, but these are less critical for this code manipulation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with purpose, format-specific notes, usage guidelines, and examples. Slightly verbose due to examples, but content earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema exists, return values need not be explained. Description covers purpose, parameters, usage boundaries, and multiple file formats. No significant gaps for intended use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so description compensates fully. It explains parent_target as dotted path vs. variable name, key as any string, value as literal expression. Examples clarify syntax for JSON and Python.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool adds a new key-value pair to dict-like containers, specifying supported formats (JSON, YAML, TOML, Python). It distinguishes from siblings like replace_value and append_to_array.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides when to use (key does not exist) and when not to use (key exists -> replace_value; adding to list -> append_to_array). Also gives format-specific guidance for parent_target and value.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Explains position parameter behavior with definitions for 'top' and 'bottom'. Missing explicit statement about file mutation, but context implies it; still solid given no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise and well-structured with clear sections and examples. Slightly verbose with example duplication but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all needed aspects for a tool with output schema: usage, exclusions, examples, and behavioral nuances. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description fully explains all three parameters: file_path (implied), content (examples), position (two values and respective effects).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it inserts top-level content like functions, classes, constants. It distinguishes from siblings like add_method, add_field, etc., by specifying scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides when to use (any top-level code) and when not, with specific alternatives (insert_before/insert_after, add_method, prepend_to_body).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries burden. It explains comma removal for JSON/JS/TS but does not explicitly mention destructive nature or irreversibility. Otherwise, behavior is well described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-organized with sections, examples, and bullet points, but slightly verbose. Purpose and guidelines are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, usage, syntax, examples, boundaries, and alternatives. Includes edge cases like comma removal. Output schema exists, so return values are covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, but description extensively explains the 'target' parameter with syntax for each file type and examples. Adds significant meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it deletes a key-value pair from dict-like containers, with specific file type syntax and examples. Distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_from_array and delete_in_body.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides 'Use this when' and 'Don't use this when' with named alternatives (remove_from_array, delete_in_body), guiding correct tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the requirement to pass exactly one of at/after/before, the uniqueness requirement for anchored matches, and the caller's responsibility for newlines and indentation. However, it does not specify error handling for invalid combinations or missing target, which slightly reduces completeness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured, starting with a concise purpose statement, followed by bullet points for modes, usage guidelines, and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, achieving high information density with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers essential usage patterns and constraints. It could have addressed edge cases like missing target or conflicting placements more explicitly, but overall it is sufficiently complete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does so thoroughly. It explains the meaning of each parameter (file_path implied, target, new_snippet, at, after, before), their usage constraints, and provides concrete examples. The constraint that exactly one placement mode must be used is clearly communicated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb and resource: 'Insert new_snippet inside a named function/method body.' It further distinguishes its four placement modes and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like replace_function_body, add_top_level, and replace_in_body, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including direct references to alternative tools (e.g., 'use replace_function_body' for replacing the whole body). This makes the selection criteria very clear for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains insertion behavior (sibling vs inside), the role of position parameter, and provides usage examples. It does not mention error handling or side effects but is transparent enough for typical use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is somewhat verbose but well-structured with bullet points and examples. It front-loads the core action and follows with when-to-use guidance, making it easy to scan. Minor redundancy (e.g., repeating position examples) kept at bay.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter roles, usage guidelines, and examples. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates fully. It explains the purpose of target, content, and position parameters, and includes concrete examples showing their values. file_path is implicit but clear from context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool inserts content as a sibling of a named symbol, specifying position options. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_top_level (append to file end) and insert_in_body (inside function body), making purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides when to use (precise placement relative to a symbol) and when not to use, with clear alternatives (add_top_level for end-of-file, insert_in_body for function bodies). Examples further clarify correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Declares read-only behavior and specifies supported languages and return content (line numbers, formatted outline). Lacks mention of error handling for invalid paths or unsupported languages, but overall transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four concise sentences plus an example, no fluff. Information is front-loaded: purpose, usage, anti-usage, example. Every sentence adds unique value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, usage, parameter example, and output format. Has output schema so return description is sufficient. Complete for a simple list tool with one parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds context beyond the schema by providing an example and stating the file should be a source file in supported languages. Schema coverage is 0% so description compensates adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a formatted outline of top-level symbols with line numbers for multiple languages. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that modify or delete symbols.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides when to use (before editing unfamiliar files) and when not to use (already know target name). Recommends it as a first call to avoid guessing, which is actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full transparency burden. It covers the basic operation and language restriction, but could elaborate on overwrite behavior and potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tightly written with no wasted words. Usage guidelines, example, and constraints are presented efficiently. Front-loaded with core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (implied), the description sufficiently covers all necessary information: action, target, language, and formatting requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds value. It explains the new_docstring format requirement (valid Python string literal with triple quotes) and provides an example illustrating the target parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it replaces or inserts Python docstrings on functions or classes, with explicit Python-only restriction. It distinguishes from sibling tools like replace_leading_comment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit 'when to use' and 'when not to use' guidance, with clear references to alternative tools and language-specific limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kambleakash0/agent-skills'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server