Evolved

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes (leads, quotes, jobs, financial, safety), but there is some overlap between pipeline_view/quote_list and morning_digest/action_items_scan. Descriptions help differentiate, but ambiguity could occur.
Naming Consistency4/5
Naming is mostly consistent with noun_verb or noun_noun pattern (e.g., action_item_resolve, lead_capture, pnl_report). A few exceptions like business_snapshot and morning_digest are noun_noun, but the pattern is clear.
Tool Count3/5
27 tools is on the high side for a single server, covering many aspects of a business. While each tool serves a purpose, the count could be reduced by consolidating related functions.
Completeness4/5
Covers the main lifecycle (leads, quotes, jobs, invoicing, financials, safety, weather). Missing some CRUD operations (e.g., no update/delete for customers or jobs), but core workflows are supported.
Average 3.8/5 across 27 of 27 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 83 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (HTML) and intent (print to PDF), but fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, modifies state, or handles errors. Important behavioral aspects like side effects or auth needs are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 20 words that conveys the core purpose and output format concisely. No redundant information or filler. It front-loads the key action and resource, earning its place efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (1 param, no output schema), the description should address prerequisites (invoice existence), error behavior, and output structure. It does not mention what happens if the invoice is missing, if rendering requires certain state, or how the HTML is returned. The agent lacks sufficient context for robust use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'invoiceId' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what this parameter represents, expected format, or constraints. The parameter name is self-explanatory but the description should clarify it, e.g., 'The unique identifier of the invoice to render.' This omission forces the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Render', resource 'invoice', and output format 'self-contained HTML document ready to print to PDF'. While specific, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'quote_render', which likely serves an analogous purpose for quotes. The purpose is strong but lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'invoice_create', 'quote_render'). There is no mention of prerequisites, suitable contexts, or when not to use the tool. The agent is left to infer usage from the bare description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It implies a read operation ('history') but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it mention auth requirements, rate limits, or other side effects. This leaves agents uncertain about safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the main purpose, though minor additional detail could be added without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return content adequately. However, it is incomplete regarding parameter behavior and usage context, leaving gaps for an agent to infer correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'jobId' lacks schema descriptions (0% coverage) and the tool description adds no explanation of its meaning, format, or impact. The phrase 'across all jobs' hints at filtering but is insufficient for correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as 'FLHA history' and lists its contents (open assessments, signed records, incident flags), distinguishing it from siblings like flha_open and flha_signoff. However, it does not mention the optional jobId parameter for filtering, slightly reducing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for viewing history, but does not specify contexts or exclusions. Sibling tools suggest related actions, but no explicit direction is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses one behavioral trait: it leaves the digest and open list unchanged. However, with no annotations, more detail about side effects, reversibility, or permissions would be helpful. The tool is a mutation, but the description provides minimal behavioral transparency beyond the stated effect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no wasted words, and front-loaded purpose. It is well-structured and easily parsed by an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks information on return values, preconditions (e.g., action item must exist), error states, or confirmation of success. Given the simplicity of the tool, some additional context on outcomes would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. The two parameters (actionItemId, resolution) have no explanation in the description, leaving the agent to infer meaning solely from the schema names, which may be ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Mark an action item handled' with a specific verb and resource. The additional phrase 'It leaves the digest and the open list' adds context about the tool's effect, distinguishing it from sibling tools like action_items_scan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to not use it, prerequisites, or related tools like action_items_scan). The description only states what the tool does without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral details such as pagination, sorting, or whether the tool is read-only. For a tool with no annotations, the description should carry more burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded, no unnecessary words. Efficient and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the content. Minor gaps exist around pagination or filtering, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the output includes contact details and quotes/jobs, going beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides a customer book with contact details and associated quotes/jobs, reinforcing the name and title. However, 'customer book' is slightly vague and does not differentiate from sibling tools like quote_list, though the focus on customers is unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like quote_list or pipeline_view. The description only states what it does without any context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the return values (file path and HTML) but lacks details on side effects (e.g., file storage location, overwrite behavior), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the quote does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) and front-loads the purpose. However, it includes very specific styling details (Boreal Void, Cyber Lime, etc.) that may be unnecessary for an AI agent deciding tool invocation, slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is moderately complete. It indicates the output (file path and HTML) but lacks information on error handling, prerequisites, and potential side effects. The return value structure is vague.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (quoteId) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter beyond its name; it does not provide format, constraints, or examples, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Render a quote), the specific output (polished, dark-brand HTML document with detailed styling, returns file path and HTML), and distinguishes from sibling tools like invoice_render by specifying the brand styling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for rendering quotes but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., quote_create, quote_list) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool writes data (marks job as Invoiced) but lacks details on idempotency, side effects, permissions, or return value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers most key aspects but omits extraLines explanation and return value. Adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage; the description explains jobId implicitly but fails to mention the extraLines parameter, its purpose, or how to use it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create invoice from completed job) and specific details: pulls quote lines, applies deposit, computes GST and balance due, and marks job as invoiced. It differentiates from siblings like invoice_render and job_complete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after job completion but does not explicitly state prerequisites or when not to use. No alternative tools are mentioned despite many siblings.
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 carries the burden. It discloses status transitions and weather checks but does not mention side effects, permissions, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences convey key actions without unnecessary fluff, but the second sentence could be more precise about the status transitions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks details on output/return values and does not specify behavior when weather check fails or when scheduling conflicts occur.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning by mentioning date, crew, and deposit status, but relies heavily on the schema. Schema coverage is only 20%, and the description does not fully explain all parameters or the workflow around the status enum.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it schedules a job by setting date, crew, and deposit status, moves through specific statuses, and checks weather. This distinguishes it from siblings like job_complete and weather_check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for scheduling but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like weather_check for weather checks or job_complete for completion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions that accepting opens a job and marks lead Won, but omits other status change side effects (e.g., notifications, lead updates for Decline/Expire), error handling, idempotency, or permissions. This leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary action and lifecycle path. The second adds a critical behavioral note. No redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple with 2 required parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main action and a key side effect, but lacks details on required parameters, valid transitions, error scenarios, and any constraints. Sufficient for basic understanding but incomplete for a robust agent selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should explain both parameters (quoteId and status). It does not mention quoteId at all and only implies status via the lifecycle but does not explicitly state that the 'status' parameter is the new value. The enum values are listed in the schema but not clarified in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it updates the quote status through a lifecycle, and specifies valid transitions (Draft → Sent → Accepted/Declined/Expired). It distinguishes from sibling tools like quote_create, quote_list, etc., by focusing on status transitions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for advancing quote status, which is clear from the lifecycle mention. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., quote must exist), or valid transition constraints (e.g., reverse transitions possibly not allowed).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses auto-drafting of hazards, inclusion of PPE and muster point, and crew add-ons. Missing details: return value (e.g., FLHA ID), error handling (e.g., duplicate FLHA), and what happens if job scope is unavailable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is four sentences with zero waste. Each sentence provides unique information: opening action, auto-drafting, crew additions, and necessity. Front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 6-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers the workflow well but omits the return value (likely an FLHA ID) and does not address idempotency or error conditions. Not fully complete for confident agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (33%), so description must compensate. It explains that extraHazards are 'site-specific hazards' and implies siteConditions describes on-site factors. However, required fields like jobId, crew, and openedBy are not elaborated beyond schema types, so added value is moderate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool opens the day's FLHA for a job before work starts, automatically drafting hazards from a specific library. It distinguishes from siblings like flha_signoff by focusing on the opening step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says to use it 'before work starts' and emphasizes necessity with 'No FLHA, no blasting.' However, it does not explicitly exclude cases when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage 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 key behavioral traits: mandatory crew sign-off, incident status recording, permanent storage, and flagging of unsigned members. With no annotations, this provides sufficient transparency for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two succinct sentences with no extraneous text. Front-loaded with verb 'Close' and resource. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers core purpose and behavior, but lacks details on flhaId (required), notes, and output/return behavior. No output schema provided, so description should fill gaps more thoroughly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds meaning for signedBy (crew sign-off) and incidentFree (incident status), but flhaId and notes are not described. Schema has 0% coverage, so partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it closes the day's FLHA, includes signing, incident recording, and permanent safety record. Distinguishes from sibling tools like flha_open by specifying end-of-day closure and flagging unsigned crew members.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., safety_log). Does not specify prerequisites like requiring an open FLHA or when to avoid use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists data sources (paid invoices, receipt ledger, actuals) and output components, but does not clarify whether data is real-time, cached, or if there are any limitations (e.g., only completed jobs). Some transparency is present, but gaps remain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every phrase adds value without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description names key output components but does not specify the structure or format. Given no output schema, more detail (e.g., whether results are aggregated, grouped, or returned per job) would help completeness. It is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'month' has full schema coverage with a clear description. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., format or default behavior), so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns profit & loss data, including revenue, expenses, per-job margins, and a business scorecard. It specifies the scope can be a single month or all-time, distinguishing it from siblings like expense_report which likely focus on expenses only.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings such as business_snapshot or pipeline_view. The agent must infer usage from the purpose, but no when-not or alternative recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes read-only listing with included details (totals, validity, verdicts), but provides no information on default status filter, pagination, ordering, or authentication. With no annotations, more detail would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is clear, efficient, and front-loaded with essential information. No redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, optional filtering, and key output fields. Lacks details on ordering or limits, but is adequate given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning by stating 'optionally filtered by status', clarifying the parameter's optional nature and role. The enum values are documented in the schema, so this is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'List quotes' with optional status filtering and mentions output includes totals, validity, and profitability verdicts. Distinguishes from siblings like quote_create and quote_update_status, but could better differentiate from other list tools like pipeline_view.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for listing quotes with optional status filter, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like quote_price or quote_render.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, or what permissions are required. While the output characteristics are described, behavioral traits like safety or side effects are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately provides key details. No redundant or irrelevant information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return contents (breakdown by category/vendor, OCR provenance, reclaimable GST) and default behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output, though some minor specifics like total amounts might be inferred.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'month' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description compensates by specifying the format (YYYY-MM) and default behavior ('default current'). This adds meaningful guidance beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns an 'expense breakdown by category and vendor' with specific details like OCR provenance and reclaimable GST. It uses a specific verb ('breakdown') and resource ('expense report'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by targeting a bookkeeping perspective.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for viewing expenses in a monthly breakdown, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like invoice_create or quote_list. No when-not conditions or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It suggests a read-only operation ('Show the live rate table') but does not explicitly confirm that no modifications occur, nor does it disclose any side effects, permissions, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and lists components clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient information about what the tool returns and its purpose. It covers the key components of the rate table.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'surface' has a description explaining it shows the learned rate for a specific surface). The description adds context about the overall table but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it shows the live rate table including base market rates, learned effective rates, access factors, and mobilization fee. It uses specific verb 'Show' and resource 'live rate table', and implies it is the quoting engine's brain, distinguishing it from sibling tools like quote_price or pricing_record_outcome.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is fundamental ('the quoting engine's brain') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions creating customer record and enforcing next action rule, but lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or duplicate handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences front-load purpose and key rules; no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately describes core function and rule for an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, but could benefit from mentioning return value or handling of duplicates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 63%. Description adds context for summary and nextAction but does not cover email, phone, or address parameters beyond their schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Log a new lead into the sales funnel' with a specific stage progression and distinguishes from siblings like lead_update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies use for initial lead capture and enforces a company rule about next action; does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but lead_update is a sibling.
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 the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: moving through stages, refreshing next action, and terminal states (Won/Lost). However, it does not address the effects on notes or nextActionDate, or whether changes are reversible. Adequate 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. No extraneous words. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the core function and highlighting terminal behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main workflow (stage progression, next action) but omits notes and nextActionDate context. It is adequate for basic use but leaves gaps for a new agent unfamiliar with CRM concepts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains stage (funnel movement, close-out) and nextAction (refresh). But it does not explain notes or nextActionDate, leaving some parameters underspecified. The description adds some value beyond schema names but is incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the purpose: 'Move a lead through the funnel and refresh its next action. Won/Lost closes it out.' It uses a specific verb ('move,' 'advance') and resource ('lead'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like lead_capture (creating leads) and pipeline_view (viewing).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (to advance a lead stage, refresh next action, or close via Won/Lost). While it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives, the context is clear given sibling tool names (e.g., lead_capture for new leads).
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 bears full burden. It explains that recorded outcomes influence future quotes via 'pricing learning loop', but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting, need for authorization) or potential destructive actions. Still, the learning effect is transparently communicated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences — compact, front-loaded purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys both action and motivational context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, description explains high-level purpose and learning impact but lacks details like return format, error conditions, or handling of duplicate records. Adequate for straightforward use but gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (14%) — only 'quotedRate' has a description. Description adds context (e.g., 'won/lost' maps to 'won' boolean, 'actual cost per sqft' maps to 'actualCostPerSqft') but omits 'margin' (calculated, not a parameter) and does not fully explain all enums. Adds meaning beyond schema for purpose but not for individual parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it records job outcomes (won/lost, quoted rate, actual cost per sqft, margin) into a learning loop. Title 'Teach the pricing engine' reinforces purpose. Distinguishes from siblings like 'pricing_rates' (which likely returns rates) and 'quote_create' (which creates quotes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage after a job outcome is known, tying to a learning loop. Does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings like 'job_complete', but context is clear for a feedback tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. The description suggests this is a read-only overview with no side effects, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or disclose any potential side effects, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences. It front-loads the key contents in the first sentence and adds context in the second. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and zero parameters, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (aggregate counts and items). However, it could be more complete by mentioning data freshness or refresh behavior, but for a snapshot tool this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema). The description adds no parameter information, but with no parameters, the baseline of 4 is appropriate as there is nothing further to clarify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states what the tool does: it provides a snapshot including funnel counts, money position, open safety items, and open action items. It also gives context as a health check for investors or owners, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual lists or actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage as a starting point ('the health check an investor or owner asks for first'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool computes wages, cost, profit, margin, and verdict, and feeds the P&L. However, it does not specify side effects like status changes or idempotency, which are relevant for a completion action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds computational context and workflow guidance. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains the process and outcomes. It lacks details on prerequisites or error handling, but it is fairly complete for the complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 17%, so the description should compensate. It lists 'hours, crew size, materials, fuel' as the parameters but does not detail them individually (e.g., units, constraints). Revenue is mentioned but not explained in the description (schema has a description for it). JobId is omitted entirely. The description adds some but not enough context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Close out a job' and specifies the resource (job) with the real numbers used. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the follow-up steps (pricing_record_outcome, invoice_create), which are separate tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to use this tool (to close out a job with real numbers) and provides follow-up actions. It does not list alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling list suggests no other tool serves the same purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the pricing components (rates, tax, deposit, profitability check) but does not disclose whether the tool has side effects (e.g., saving or caching). It implies read-only by saying 'Use this before creating any quote.'
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at ~70 words, front-loads the purpose, and includes a critical usage instruction. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it is efficient and readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains inputs and the pricing logic well, but since there is no output schema, it fails to explicitly describe the return value (e.g., price breakdown, margin verdict). The mention of 'margin verdict' hints at output but does not confirm format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters drive the pricing engine (e.g., 'learned $/sqft rates by blast depth and surface', 'access factor'), enhancing understanding beyond the schema's descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Price an abrasive-blasting job' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'quote_create' by adding 'Use this before creating any quote.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage context ('Use this before creating any quote'), but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools like 'pricing_rates' or specify 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly states that the tool auto-raises items (mutational behavior) and deduplicates against already open items. With no annotations, this provides essential behavioral context. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or whether multiple runs cause duplicate items.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences efficiently convey the tool's function and conditions. The list of trigger conditions is well-structured and easy to parse. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description explains what the tool detects and deduplicates, it omits any mention of return values or results. Given no output schema, describing the output (e.g., list of raised items or confirmation) would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline score of 4 applies as the schema coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose as scanning for 'dropped balls' (action items) and specifies exactly which conditions trigger automatic raising of items. It distinguishes from sibling tools like action_item_resolve by focusing on detection rather than resolution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for proactive identification of overdue or stale items but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. Sibling tool action_item_resolve suggests complementary use, but no guidance is given.
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 exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the gating thresholds (precip, wind, temp) that determine verdicts, and implies a read-only operation. It does not cover authentication or side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key details (thresholds). Every part earns its place with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the output (forecast with verdicts) and thresholds. It does not detail the return format or verdict values, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description says 'Five-day forecast' but the input schema allows 1-14 days via the 'days' parameter, creating confusion. The parameter is not explained in the description, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but instead contradicts the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides a five-day forecast with blast-day verdicts using company thresholds. It specifies the resource (weather for blasting) and action (forecast + verdict), distinguishing it from sibling tools like morning_digest.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for assessing blast-day suitability via verdicts and thresholds. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is reasonably clear given the tool's specificity.
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 must disclose behavior. It thoroughly lists what the tool returns, indicating it is read-only and aggregate. No destructive or side effects are mentioned, which is appropriate for a read-only tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the key concept 'The 6:30 AM owner briefing, on demand' and then bulletizes content. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description must cover return values, which it does exhaustively. For a no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the description serves as the sole explanation of what the tool does. It fully compensates by enumerating all aspects of the digest. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it's an on-demand owner briefing tool that returns a comprehensive set of business metrics and alerts. The verb 'morning_digest' combined with the list of contents makes 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it is the primary tool for a daily business overview but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool mentions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a destructive action (restoring to seeded state) but does not explicitly state that current data is overwritten or lost. The mention that data is synthetic adds context but not behavioral detail. A more explicit warning about data loss would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage context is provided in the second. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. It explains the synthetic nature of the data, which is useful context. No additional information is required for an AI agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage. With no parameters to describe, the baseline score of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information, as none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Restore the synthetic demo dataset to its seeded state'. It specifies the resource (synthetic demo dataset) and the verb (restore). The sibling tools are business-oriented (e.g., invoice_create, lead_capture), making this tool distinct as a demo reset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes explicit usage context: 'Useful between demo runs.' This tells when to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but given the tool's simplicity and uniqueness among siblings, this is adequate.
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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses auto-numbering, 30-day validity, profitability check, and behavior for custom prices below break-even, providing comprehensive behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences efficiently convey key information with no wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers numbering, validity, profitability, and custom pricing behavior, but does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., quote ID, status). Given no output schema, this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20%, and the description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond mentioning 'priced lines' for the lines array. It does not compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a formal quote with auto-numbering and validity, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like quote_list and quote_update_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies it is for creating a quote for a customer from one or more priced lines, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, though context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so description carries full burden. It describes a read-only view with specific data points, which is transparent. However, it doesn't mention data freshness, permissions, or aggregation details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences front-load the key information without any wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema read-only tool, the description is completely adequate. It explains the view and when to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it shows the funnel overview with specific details (leads by stage, quotes age, jobs by dispatch status). It also positions itself as the go-to tool for a common business query, differentiating it 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states it's the first tool for 'where's the business at?' but does not provide when-not-to-use or alternative tools.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: tiered extraction, automatic escalation to a stronger model, categorization, job matching, duplicate guarding, and posting to the expense ledger. This is comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every phrase adds value. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a complete picture of what happens from input to output, including pipeline stages and side effects like duplicate guarding and ledger posting.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds context by explaining that 'text' is raw receipt text and 'jobId' is for job attribution, tying them to the pipeline behavior. It does not add entirely new semantics but reinforces usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Run a receipt through the tiered extraction pipeline... Paper to books in one call.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and the tool is distinct from all sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for processing receipts and mentions key behaviors like automatic escalation, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. However, no sibling tool offers similar functionality, so context is clear.
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:

[![evolved MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kr8tiv-ai/evolved/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kr8tiv-ai/evolved)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![evolved MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kr8tiv-ai/evolved/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kr8tiv-ai/evolved)

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kr8tiv-ai/evolved'

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