Consul MCP Server
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose targeting specific Consul resources and actions, with clear boundaries between operations like KV store management (get-kv, put-kv, delete-kv), service registration/deregistration, health checks, catalog queries, and agent operations. No overlapping or ambiguous tool purposes exist.
Naming Consistency5/5All tools follow a consistent verb-noun naming pattern with hyphens (e.g., get-kv, register-service, list-events), maintaining perfect uniformity throughout the set. The naming convention is predictable and enhances readability across all 24 tools.
Tool Count3/5With 24 tools, the count is borderline high for a single server, potentially feeling heavy for agents to navigate. However, given Consul's broad scope (service discovery, KV store, health checks, events, sessions, etc.), it covers multiple domains comprehensively, making the count reasonable though on the upper edge of typical scoping.
Completeness5/5The tool set provides complete coverage for Consul's core functionalities, including full CRUD operations for KV store (put, get, delete, list), service lifecycle (register, deregister, get, list), health checks (register, deregister, get), catalog queries, events, sessions, and agent management. No obvious gaps exist for the inferred domain.
Average 2.8/5 across 24 of 24 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 3 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.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
- Behavior1/5
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. 'Fire a new event' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or what happens after firing (e.g., is it broadcast, stored, or processed?). This leaves critical gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.
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 extremely concise with just three words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise, as it lacks necessary detail for clarity. Every word earns its place, but the overall brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'firing an event' entails, the expected outcomes, or any system-specific context. This inadequacy makes it insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and effects in the broader toolset.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('name' and 'payload') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. However, since the schema fully covers the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Fire a new event' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'fire-event' with minimal elaboration. While it indicates the action (fire) and resource (event), it lacks specificity about what kind of events are being fired or what system this operates in, making it vague. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'list-events' beyond the basic verb difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit or implied contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites mentioned. Given sibling tools like 'list-events' exist, the lack of differentiation makes it misleading for an agent to determine appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate if this is a read/write operation, potential side effects (e.g., data modification), authentication needs, or error handling, making it inadequate 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. However, this brevity contributes to underspecification rather than 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?
Given the complexity of executing queries, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits critical details like return values, error conditions, or dependencies on other tools, failing to provide enough context for reliable agent operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'ID of the prepared query'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unenriched parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Execute a prepared query' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. While it specifies the verb 'execute' and resource 'prepared query', it lacks detail about what execution entails (e.g., running a database query, returning results) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'create-prepared-query' or 'get-kv'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does 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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a prepared query ID), exclusions, or related tools like 'create-prepared-query' for setup, leaving the agent with no context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, its permissions, rate limits, or output format, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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 extremely concise with 'Get agent members', a single phrase that directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it may be overly terse, lacking necessary elaboration for 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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple tool with 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'agent members' are, the return format, or any behavioral context, making it inadequate for effective use despite low complexity.
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 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable as there are no parameters to describe, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get agent members' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'agent members' but lacks detail on what 'agent members' are or the scope of retrieval, offering only basic purpose without differentiation from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear compared to siblings like 'get-agent-self' or 'get-peers', which might overlap in functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, idempotency, side effects, or what happens on failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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 the complexity of a mutation tool with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what a prepared query is, how it's used, what the creation entails, and what the expected outcome or return values are, making it insufficient for effective tool selection.
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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 4 parameters (datacenters, name, nearestN, service). The description doesn't explain how these parameters interact or their purpose in creating a prepared query, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new prepared query' clearly states the action (create) and resource (prepared query), but it's vague about what a 'prepared query' entails in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from other creation tools like 'register-service' or 'put-kv', which limits its specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'execute-prepared-query' and 'list-sessions', there's no indication of prerequisites, dependencies, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, 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. 'List all events' implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns all events at once or uses pagination, what authentication is required, rate limits, or what happens when no events exist. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of efficient minimalism that earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple but potentially broad tool (listing events in a system with many event-related operations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'events' are in this context, what format they're returned in, or any limitations. For a tool in this environment, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'name' documented as 'Filter events by name'. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No additional context about filtering behavior is given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all events' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('events'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fire-event' or 'list-catalog-services'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about what kind of events or system context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'fire-event' (create events), 'list-catalog-services', and 'list-sessions', there's no indication of when this specific listing tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other list operations in the system.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a key but doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what happens if the key doesn't exist (e.g., error vs. no-op), or any permission/rate limit considerations. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and has zero wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the outcome (e.g., success/failure response), error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'key' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., key format, constraints), so it 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.
Purpose4/5Does 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 key from the KV store'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'destroy-session' or 'deregister-service', which also perform deletion operations but on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., key must exist), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'list-kv' (to check keys) or 'put-kv' (to add/update keys).
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. 'Deregister' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to associated resources, or potential side effects. 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.
Conciseness5/5Is 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 and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context like success/error responses, prerequisites (e.g., existing health check), or impact on system state. Given the complexity and absence of structured data, more detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'ID of the health check to deregister'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. With high schema coverage, 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Deregister') and target resource ('a health check from Consul'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'deregister-service' or 'register-health-check', which would require specifying what distinguishes health check deregistration from service deregistration or registration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'deregister-service' and 'register-health-check', there's no indication of the specific context for health check deregistration, such as when a check is no longer needed versus removing a service entirely.
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. 'Deregister' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects related resources, or what happens on success/failure. 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after deregistration, whether there are side effects, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. Given the complexity of removing a service from a system like Consul, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't provide extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('deregister') and resource ('a service from Consul'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'destroy-session' or 'delete-kv' which also perform removal operations on different Consul resources, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'destroy-session' and 'delete-kv' that also remove things, there's no indication whether this is for removing services specifically versus other Consul entities, nor any prerequisites or warnings about when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action but doesn't explain what 'destroy' entails (permanent deletion, revocation, side effects), authentication requirements, error conditions, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple 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.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after destruction, error handling, or provide context about sessions in Consul. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'ID of the session to destroy'. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Destroy') and resource ('a session in Consul'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-sessions' or explain what a 'session' is in Consul context, preventing 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing session ID), consequences of destruction, or when to choose this over other session-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without detailing whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires permissions, what the output format is, or any rate limits. 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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. It doesn't explain what 'nodes' are, the return format, or behavioral traits like safety or performance. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no parameters are required, aligning with the schema. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get nodes from the catalog' clearly states the action (get) and resource (nodes from catalog), but it's vague about what 'nodes' specifically are and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get-catalog-service' or 'list-catalog-services'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get-catalog-service' or 'list-catalog-services'. The description offers no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on 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 what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves - no information about what format the health checks are returned in, whether this is a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns health check data. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'health check', what format the results are in, or what information the agent can expect to receive. For a tool in a monitoring/health context, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'service' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('health checks for a service'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'register-health-check' or 'deregister-health-check', which would require more specificity to earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to related tools like 'get-services' or 'get-catalog-service' that might provide overlapping functionality.
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 basic action but doesn't cover critical aspects like read-only nature (implied but not explicit), error handling for missing keys, performance characteristics, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.
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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it efficient for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens when the key doesn't exist, what format the returned value has, or any constraints on key naming. Given the context of KV store operations, more behavioral context would be helpful.
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 description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). The schema fully documents the single 'key' parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('value from the KV store'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-kv' (which lists keys) or 'put-kv' (which stores values), missing explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-kv' for browsing keys or 'put-kv' for storing values. It lacks any context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.
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' implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify if this is a safe, idempotent query or has side effects like caching. It lacks details on error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'leader' entails (e.g., elected node, primary instance). 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words ('Get the current leader'), with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy or fluff.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what 'leader' means in this context (e.g., from the sibling tools, it might relate to Consul or a similar system), what data is returned, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely returns critical system state information, more context is needed to guide the agent properly.
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 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate here. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description doesn't need to compensate, and a baseline score of 4 is awarded for not introducing confusion or omissions regarding inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the current leader' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current leader'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what domain or system this leader belongs to (e.g., Consul cluster, agent pool), which would help distinguish it from potential siblings. It's not tautological but remains somewhat vague without context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools like 'get-agent-self', 'get-peers', and 'get-services', it's unclear if this is for cluster leadership, service discovery, or another context. There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get the current peers') without any details on traits like read-only vs. destructive behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Get the current peers') with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its simple purpose, 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.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a tool that likely interacts with a system (e.g., a peer network or cluster), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'peers' entails, the output format, or any behavioral context, and there is no output schema to compensate. This makes it inadequate for informed tool selection.
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 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to describe. This aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the current peers' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('current peers'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'peers' means in this context (e.g., network peers, cluster nodes, or other entities) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-agent-members' or 'get-catalog-nodes', which might have overlapping functionality. This makes it vague but minimally adequate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when peers might be unavailable or how it relates to sibling tools like 'get-agent-members'. This lack of usage instructions leaves the agent without clear direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded to the core purpose without any wasted text. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by sibling tools (e.g., in a service catalog or Consul-like system), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'running services' means, how results are returned, or any behavioral context, leaving the agent with inadequate information for proper 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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately doesn't mention any, making it complete in this regard. A baseline of 4 is applied as it handles the zero-parameter case correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get running services' clearly states the action (get) and resource (running services), but it's somewhat vague about what 'running services' specifically refers to in this context. It doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'list-catalog-services' or 'get-catalog-service', leaving ambiguity about scope and differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-catalog-services' or 'get-catalog-service'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, offering no help in tool selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists keys but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if no keys match the prefix. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with a data store.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to understand quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that lists keys in a data store. It doesn't cover return values (e.g., format of the list, error handling) or important behavioral aspects like permissions or limitations, which are critical for effective use in a Consul-like context with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'prefix' documented as 'Prefix to filter keys by'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('keys in the KV store'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get-kv' or 'put-kv' beyond the basic action, missing explicit differentiation about scope or granularity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'list-kv' over 'get-kv' (which likely retrieves specific key values) or other sibling tools, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a write operation ('Put'), implying mutation, but fails to describe critical behaviors like whether it overwrites existing keys, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like triggering events. This leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words—and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently communicates the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like error conditions (e.g., invalid keys), return values, or how it integrates with sibling tools (e.g., 'get-kv' for retrieval). For a write operation with no structured behavioral hints, more detail is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('key' and 'value') with their types and defaults. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Put') and resource ('KV store'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-kv' or 'get-kv' beyond the basic verb, 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete-kv' or 'get-kv'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the key must exist or if it overwrites existing values, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention whether this is a write operation (implied by 'Register'), what permissions are needed, potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. 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.
Conciseness5/5Is 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 sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place in conveying the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like what happens on success/failure, authentication requirements, or how this tool relates to sibling operations, leaving the agent with incomplete context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema fields, meeting the baseline expectation but not providing extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Register') and resource ('a health check with Consul'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'deregister-health-check' or 'get-health-checks', which would require explicit comparison to achieve 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deregister-health-check' or 'get-health-checks'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
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. While 'register' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether registration is idempotent, potential side effects, or how Consul handles duplicate registrations. 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential purpose with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick comprehension by an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and any information about return values or potential errors. The high schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the broader contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). Since schema_description_coverage is high, the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter semantics in the description. The description doesn't add value beyond the schema's parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('register') and resource ('a service with Consul'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'register-health-check' or 'deregister-service', which would require explicit differentiation to earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'deregister-service' or 'register-health-check', leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'reload' implies a mutation or restart action, but doesn't specify if this is destructive (e.g., interrupts services), requires permissions, has side effects, or what happens upon completion. This leaves critical behavioral traits unclear for a tool that likely affects system state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase ('Reload agent configuration') that directly conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, 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.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool likely performs a system mutation (reloading configuration) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'reload' entails operationally, potential impacts, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps in understanding for safe and 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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied since it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps, though it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Reload agent configuration' states a clear action ('reload') and target ('agent configuration'), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what 'reload' entails (e.g., restarting, refreshing settings) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'get-agent-self' or 'get-agent-members', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after configuration changes), exclusions, or relate it to sibling tools like 'register-service' or 'deregister-service' that might affect agent behavior, resulting in minimal 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. 'Get agent self information' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undefined, though it's not contradictory.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without fluff or ambiguity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on return values, error handling, or operational context. For a basic read operation, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without trial and error.
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 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, avoiding redundancy. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't add unnecessary information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get agent self information' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('agent self information'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about what 'agent self information' includes (e.g., configuration, status, identity) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get-agent-members' or 'get-peers', which also retrieve agent-related data. This makes the purpose somewhat vague but not misleading.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., during agent setup or monitoring), or exclusions. Without annotations or sibling differentiation, an agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get information'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what specific information is returned. 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.
Conciseness5/5Is 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 sized for a simple lookup 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.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter lookup tool with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about when to use it versus siblings, what information is returned, and behavioral constraints that would be helpful for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'service' clearly documented as 'Name of the service to get information for'. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, which is adequate given the comprehensive schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get information') and resource ('specific service from the catalog'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-services' or 'list-catalog-services', which appear to retrieve multiple services rather than a specific one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-services' or 'list-catalog-services'. It mentions retrieving information for a 'specific service', but doesn't clarify prerequisites, error conditions, or appropriate contexts 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 provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are formatted, or any rate limits. 'List' implies a read operation, but specifics are lacking.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what 'services' are in this context, how results are returned, or any behavioral constraints, 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.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a high baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('all services in the catalog'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get-catalog-service' or 'get-services', 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-catalog-service' or 'get-services'. The description only states what it does, not when it's 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. It states it's a listing operation, implying read-only behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, output format, or error conditions. This is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand immediately.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'session' is in Consul, what the output includes (e.g., session IDs, metadata), or behavioral aspects like sorting or filtering. For a tool with no structured data support, more context is needed.
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 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is given since there are no parameters to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all sessions in Consul'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'destroy-session' (destructive) and 'get-agent-members' (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar listing tools like 'list-kv' or 'list-catalog-services'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare to similar listing tools (e.g., 'list-kv' for key-value pairs), or specify use cases (e.g., monitoring sessions vs. querying specific ones).
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/kocierik/consul-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server