Liveblocks

Official

by liveblocks

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources like rooms, comments, threads, notifications, and storage. However, some potential overlap exists between get-room and get-rooms, or between various notification-related tools, but descriptions clarify their scope. The set is well-organized by resource type, making tool selection generally clear.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use a consistent kebab-case verb-noun pattern throughout, such as create-room, get-thread, update-notification-settings. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate, with no deviations in naming conventions.
Tool Count3/5
With 39 tools, the count feels heavy for a collaborative platform server, potentially overwhelming for agents. While Liveblocks has multiple features (rooms, comments, threads, notifications, storage), the tool set could be more streamlined, as some operations like get-room and get-rooms might be consolidated or grouped.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive CRUD and lifecycle coverage across all major Liveblocks domains: rooms, comments, threads, notifications, and storage. It includes creation, retrieval, updating, deletion, and specialized actions like reactions and subscriptions, leaving no obvious gaps for agent workflows.
Average 2.8/5 across 39 of 39 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 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 Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format might be (e.g., JSON structure). This is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it lacks front-loading of critical details like parameter context or usage distinctions, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with 1 parameter), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'notification settings' includes, how to interpret results, or address potential errors, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it 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 input schema has 1 parameter (userId) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic context. The description adds no information about the parameter, such as what 'userId' represents (e.g., a user identifier string) or how to obtain it. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Get') and resource ('Liveblocks notification settings'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'notification settings' specifically entails and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get-user-room-subscription-settings' or 'get-room-subscription-settings', which might involve similar settings retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-inbox-notification' or 'get-room-subscription-settings' that might retrieve related data, the description lacks context on usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get recent Liveblocks threads') without explaining what 'recent' entails (e.g., time frame, pagination), whether it's read-only, what permissions are needed, or how errors are handled. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more structured by including key details like parameter context or usage scenarios.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or how parameters interact, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'recent' but doesn't explain how this relates to the parameters (roomId and query with resolved/metadata). No additional meaning is provided for the parameters, leaving their purpose and usage unclear beyond the schema structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get recent Liveblocks threads', which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Liveblocks threads'). However, it lacks specificity about what 'recent' means and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-thread' (singular) or 'get-thread-participants', leaving ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when to choose 'get-threads' over 'get-thread' (singular) or other related tools like 'get-thread-subscriptions', nor does it specify prerequisites or context for usage.
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 for behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. 'Broadcast' implies a write operation that sends data to multiple recipients, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the room doesn't exist, whether events are persisted, rate limits, or what constitutes success/failure. This is critically inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it does convey, though the brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters including a nested object, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens when the tool runs, what the event object should contain, how rooms are identified, or what the expected outcome is. The agent would be operating almost blindly when using this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. It mentions 'room' and 'event' but doesn't explain what a roomId format should be, what types of events are valid, or any constraints on the event object structure. With 2 required parameters and nested objects, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to properly invoke the tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('broadcast an event') and target resource ('to a Liveblocks room'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many siblings (like 'trigger-inbox-notification' or 'update-room'), which also involve room operations, leaving room for confusion about when to choose this specific broadcast function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 34 sibling tools including many room-related operations (e.g., 'create-room', 'update-room', 'trigger-inbox-notification'), there's no indication of when broadcasting an event is appropriate versus other room manipulation methods. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether edits are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. It lacks critical context for a tool that modifies data in a collaborative environment.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear name, though this conciseness comes at the cost of missing important details that would help the 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?
Given the complexity (4 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the editing operation's scope, required inputs, expected outcomes, or error conditions. For a mutation tool in a collaborative system with rich data structures, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'roomId', 'threadId', 'commentId', or the complex 'data' object represent, their formats, or relationships. The agent must rely entirely on the schema structure without semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit a Liveblocks comment' clearly states the verb ('Edit') and resource ('Liveblocks comment'), but it's vague about what editing entails. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create-comment' and 'delete-comment' by specifying editing, but doesn't clarify what aspects of a comment can be edited or how this differs from similar tools like 'edit-thread-metadata'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing comment IDs), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'update-room' or 'edit-thread-metadata'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format might be. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple-sounding tool and front-loaded with the core action, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of other documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the hierarchical relationship between roomId, threadId, and commentId, what data is returned, or any prerequisites. This leaves too many unknowns for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no parameter information. The three required parameters (roomId, threadId, commentId) are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving their meaning and format unclear. This is inadequate for a tool with three parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a Liveblocks comment' clearly states the action (get) and resource (comment), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get-thread' or 'get-threads'. It specifies the platform (Liveblocks) which helps, but lacks detail about what exactly is retrieved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get-thread' or 'get-threads', the description doesn't explain if this is for retrieving a single comment within a thread/room context or how it differs from other get 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 indicates a mutation ('Update') but lacks details on permissions required, side effects (e.g., whether changes are reversible), rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to other scoring weaknesses.
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 a mutation tool with 2 parameters (including a nested object), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage context, leaving the agent under-informed for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It doesn't explain what 'userId' or 'data' represent, their formats, or how 'data' should be structured (e.g., key-value pairs for notification types). With 2 undocumented parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Liveblocks notification settings' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('Liveblocks notification settings'), but it's somewhat vague about what specifically is being updated. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-notification-settings' (read vs. write) but doesn't specify scope or granularity beyond the general resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing 'get-notification-settings' first), exclusions, or comparisons with similar tools like 'update-room-subscription-settings', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Add'), permission requirements, rate limits, side effects, or response format, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and the tool being a mutation (implied), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details about parameters, behavior, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'roomId', 'threadId', 'commentId', or 'data' represent, their formats, or the meaning of nested fields like 'emoji' and 'userId', leaving all 4 parameters semantically unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a reaction') and target ('to a Liveblocks comment'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'remove-comment-reaction' beyond the verb, missing explicit comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove-comment-reaction' or other comment-related tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing existing room/thread/comment) 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a destructive operation ('Delete'), but lacks details on permissions required, whether deletions are permanent/reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a tool that performs bulk deletions.
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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with 1 required parameter, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context, error handling, and output expectations, leaving critical gaps for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions no parameters at all, leaving the required 'userId' parameter completely unexplained. The description adds zero semantic value beyond what the bare schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('all Liveblocks inbox notifications'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'delete-inbox-notification' (singular) by specifying 'all', though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete-inbox-notification' (for individual deletions) or other notification-related tools. The description states what it does but offers no context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects related data (like reactions), or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise at just 4 words, with zero wasted language. Every word ('Delete a Liveblocks comment') directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though it could benefit from additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like permissions, side effects, error conditions, or return values. The agent would need to guess about many aspects of this tool's behavior and requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 3 parameters (roomId, threadId, commentId) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no additional parameter information - it doesn't explain what these IDs represent, their format, or how they relate hierarchically (e.g., comment within thread within room). The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a Liveblocks comment'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling deletion tools like delete-room or delete-thread, which would require mentioning what distinguishes comment deletion from other deletion operations.
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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing specific permissions), when deletion is appropriate versus editing, or how this relates to other comment operations like edit-comment or get-comment. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. No information about rate limits, error conditions, or response format is included.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with 2 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, error conditions, permissions needed, or how to identify the correct notification to delete given the sibling tools available.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the two required parameters (userId, inboxNotificationId). No context about parameter formats, validation rules, or relationships between parameters is given, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to properly invoke this tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a Liveblocks inbox notification'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'delete-all-inbox-notifications' which handles bulk deletion, leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete-all-inbox-notifications' or 'delete-notification-settings'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, permissions needed, or typical scenarios for single notification deletion.
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 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, or what the response looks like. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function and represents excellent conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether the operation is idempotent, what error conditions might occur, or provide any context about the subscription settings being deleted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters (roomId and userId), the description provides no information about what these parameters mean or how they should be used. The description doesn't mention either parameter, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding beyond the parameter names themselves.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a Liveblocks room's subscription settings'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'delete-room' or 'delete-notification-settings', 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'delete-room', 'delete-notification-settings', and 'update-room-subscription-settings' available, there's no indication of when this specific deletion operation is appropriate versus those other options.
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 mentions that 'null' can remove a key, which is useful context about mutation behavior. However, it doesn't disclose critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to existing metadata not mentioned. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important behavioral nuance about null values. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, complex nested parameters, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should explain more about the mutation's effects, required permissions, error handling, and the purpose of each parameter. The current description leaves too many gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (including a complex nested object), the description adds minimal value. It only explains that 'null' can remove a metadata key, which relates to the 'metadata' property within 'data'. It doesn't clarify what 'roomId', 'threadId', or the other 'data' properties ('userId', 'updatedAt') represent or how they should be used. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Edit') and resource ('a Liveblocks thread's metadata'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'update-room' or 'edit-comment' by specifying thread metadata editing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all possible alternatives like 'update-room' which might also handle metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'update-room', 'edit-comment', and 'mark-thread-as-resolved', there's no indication of when thread metadata editing is appropriate versus other thread or room operations. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
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 states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the notification doesn't exist. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but provides inadequate behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is 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 language. Every word ('Get', 'Liveblocks', 'inbox', 'notification') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It provides basic purpose but lacks parameter explanations, usage context, behavioral details, and return value information that would be necessary for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters (userId and inboxNotificationId), the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. It doesn't explain what these IDs represent, their format, where to obtain them, or their relationship. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('Liveblocks inbox notification'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get-inbox-notifications' (plural), which appears to retrieve multiple notifications versus this single-notification retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'get-inbox-notifications' for retrieving multiple notifications, nor does it explain prerequisites like needing specific notification IDs or user contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether it's paginated (though parameters suggest it might be), what the return format looks like, or any rate limits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters including nested objects), complete lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'recent' means, how notifications are structured, what authentication is required, or how parameters interact. For a tool that likely returns structured notification data, the description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters (including a nested object), the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'userId', 'query.unread', 'startingAfter', or 'limit' mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the retrieval. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving all parameters semantically opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Liveblocks inbox notifications'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get-inbox-notification' (singular) by implying it retrieves multiple notifications. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other notification-related tools like 'delete-all-inbox-notifications' or 'trigger-inbox-notification' beyond the action verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-inbox-notification' (singular), 'delete-all-inbox-notifications', and 'trigger-inbox-notification', there's no indication of when this bulk retrieval tool is appropriate versus fetching a single notification or performing other inbox operations. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'recent' rooms which hints at temporal filtering, but doesn't explain what 'recent' means, whether results are paginated, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 4 words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted words. While it may be under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters including nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand when to use it, how parameters work, what behavior to expect, or what the output contains. The minimal description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. The description doesn't explain what 'limit', 'userId', 'groupIds', 'startingAfter', or the complex 'query' object do, nor how they interact with 'recent' rooms. With 5 parameters including nested objects, this leaves the agent guessing about parameter purposes and relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'Liveblocks rooms' with the qualifier 'recent', which provides a specific purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-room' (singular) by implying it returns multiple rooms, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list-like tools like 'get-threads' or 'get-active-users'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when to use 'get-rooms' versus 'get-room' (singular), 'get-threads', or other retrieval tools. There's no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations beyond the implicit 'recent' scope.
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 read operation ('Get') without mentioning potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves API calls.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or return values, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool effectively beyond its basic purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the parameters 'roomId' and 'userId'. It doesn't explain what these IDs represent, their format, or how they relate to fetching subscription settings, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a Liveblocks room's subscription settings'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get-user-room-subscription-settings', which handles user-specific settings, but the core functionality is well-defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-user-room-subscription-settings' or 'get-room' for general room info. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing specific permissions or when subscription settings are relevant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the participants data returns in. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. For a tool with 2 required parameters that retrieves participant data, it should explain parameter meanings, return format, and any constraints. The current description leaves too much undefined for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'thread' and 'participants' but doesn't explain what 'roomId' and 'threadId' parameters represent, their expected formats, or how they relate to retrieving participants. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names themselves.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a Liveblocks thread's participants'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-thread' or 'get-threads', which also retrieve thread-related information but focus on different aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-thread' (for thread metadata) and 'get-threads' (for multiple threads), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'subscriptions' entail (e.g., user lists, notification settings). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'subscriptions' are, how results are returned, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'a Liveblocks thread's subscriptions', which implies 'threadId' is needed, but doesn't explain 'roomId' or clarify the relationship between room and thread. No parameter details are provided, failing to add meaning beyond the bare 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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('a Liveblocks thread's subscriptions'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get-thread' or 'get-thread-participants', which also retrieve thread-related data but focus on different aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-thread' (for thread metadata) and 'get-thread-participants' (for participants), there's no indication of how 'subscriptions' differ or when this specific retrieval is appropriate, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, return values, behavioral context, and usage relative to siblings, making it insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'roomId' or 'options' (with 'format', 'key', 'type') mean or how they affect the operation, leaving all parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a Liveblocks Yjs text document'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-storage-document' or 'get-room', but the specificity of 'Yjs text document' provides some distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-storage-document' or 'get-room', nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases. The description only states what it does, not when 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Mark as resolved' implies a mutation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether the action is reversible, side effects (e.g., notifications), or error conditions. It lacks details on what 'resolved' means in context or the tool's response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. 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.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature (implied by 'Mark'), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, three required parameters, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters—it doesn't explain what 'roomId', 'threadId', or 'data.userId' represent, their formats, or relationships. With three required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent guessing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Mark') and resource ('a Liveblocks thread as resolved'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'mark-thread-as-unresolved' by specifying the resolution state, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other thread-related tools like 'delete-thread' or 'edit-thread-metadata'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an unresolved thread), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'mark-thread-as-unresolved' or 'delete-thread'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. It mentions the platform ('Liveblocks') but doesn't explain the reaction system's behavior or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise at 6 words, front-loading the core action and target. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is optimal for a basic tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'reaction', how reactions work in Liveblocks, what happens after removal, error conditions, or return values. The description provides only the minimal action statement without necessary operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters (including a nested object with 3 sub-parameters), the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. It doesn't explain what 'roomId', 'threadId', 'commentId', or the 'data' object represent, nor does it clarify the meaning of 'emoji', 'userId', or 'removedAt' fields. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove a reaction') and target resource ('from a Liveblocks comment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'add-comment-reaction' by specifying removal rather than addition. However, it doesn't specify what type of reaction (emoji) or provide additional context about the reaction system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing reaction to remove), doesn't differentiate from related tools like 'edit-comment' or 'delete-comment', and offers no context about appropriate scenarios for reaction removal versus other comment modifications.
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 disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read/write operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens upon subscription (e.g., real-time updates).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameters, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'roomId', 'threadId', or 'data.userId' represent or their expected formats, leaving all three parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Subscribe to') and resource ('a Liveblocks thread'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'unsubscribe-from-thread' beyond the opposite action, missing explicit comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-thread-subscriptions' or 'update-room-subscription-settings' is provided. The description lacks context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios for subscription.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, whether notifications are persistent or ephemeral, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 40% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context about what the tool actually does beyond the basic action, how it differs from similar tools, what the parameters mean, or what to expect as a result. The conciseness comes at the cost of necessary detail.
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 40% (only 'activityData' and 'roomId' have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'userId', 'kind', or 'subjectId' mean, nor does it clarify the pattern requirement for 'kind' (^\$). With low coverage and 5 parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema's deficiencies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'custom Liveblocks inbox notification', which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete-inbox-notification' or 'get-inbox-notification' by focusing on creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create-room' or 'create-comment' beyond the notification context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'broadcast-event', 'create-room'), there's no indication of scenarios where this notification tool is preferred or prerequisites for its use. The only implicit usage hint is in the input schema's 'roomId' description, but that's not part of the tool description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't reveal key traits: whether this is a destructive operation (likely, as it removes a subscription), permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly. No fluff or redundancy is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 3 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral details, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it adds no semantic information. It doesn't clarify what 'roomId', 'threadId', or 'data.userId' represent, their formats, or how they relate to the unsubscribe action. With 3 undocumented parameters, the description fails to provide necessary context beyond the 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 the verb ('Unsubscribe from') and resource ('a Liveblocks thread'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'subscribe-to-thread' by specifying the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly mention what 'unsubscribe' entails in this context (e.g., from notifications or participation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to be subscribed first), related tools like 'subscribe-to-thread', or context-specific scenarios. The description alone offers no usage instructions beyond the basic action.
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 an update operation (implying mutation), but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to existing room data, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise with a single clear sentence that front-loads the essential action. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy. Every word earns its place by specifying the exact operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or provide enough context for safe invocation. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool effectively in production scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'roomId' and 'newRoomId' represent, their format constraints, validation rules, or how they differ. The agent must rely solely on parameter names without semantic context, which is inadequate for a tool with 2 required parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a Liveblocks room's ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'update-room' or 'update-room-subscription-settings' by specifying it updates the room ID specifically, not other room properties. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'room ID' refers to in the Liveblocks context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing room access), consequences (e.g., whether old room ID becomes invalid), or when to choose this over other room-related tools like 'update-room' or 'create-room'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is 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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters (including nested objects), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving critical gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively or what to expect from it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 3 parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'subscription settings' but doesn't explain what parameters like 'roomId', 'userId', or the nested 'data' object with 'threads' and 'textMentions' enums actually represent or how to use them. It adds minimal value beyond the bare 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 the action ('Update') and resource ('a Liveblocks room's subscription settings'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update-notification-settings' or 'update-room', which could also involve updating settings or rooms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-notification-settings' or 'get-room-subscription-settings'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Always ask for a userId,' implying a behavioral constraint (user input requirement), but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if it triggers notifications), rate limits, or error handling. For a creation 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences, front-loading the core action and a specific instruction. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant or verbose language, making it efficient for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover parameter meanings beyond a hint for 'userId,' behavioral aspects like mutations or returns, or how it fits with siblings. For a creation tool in this rich context, more detail is needed.
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 compensate. It adds minimal value by hinting at 'userId' as a required parameter but doesn't explain 'roomId,' 'threadId,' or the complex 'data' object structure. Baseline is 3 since the description partially addresses one parameter but leaves others undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('a Liveblocks comment'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'edit-comment' or 'delete-comment' by specifying creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'add-comment-reaction' or other comment-related tools beyond the basic action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance with 'Always ask for a userId,' which hints at a required parameter but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is given about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing room/thread), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create-thread' or 'edit-comment'.
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 action ('Create') without explaining what creation entails. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate roomId, or what the response contains. For a creation 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise with a single, clear sentence that front-loads the essential information. There's zero wasted verbiage or redundancy. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 5 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Liveblocks room' is, what happens after creation, error conditions, or return values. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With 60% schema description coverage (3 of 5 parameters have descriptions), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate for the 40% gap (roomId and metadata parameters lack schema descriptions) or provide additional context about parameter relationships or usage patterns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('a Liveblocks room'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'update-room' or explain what distinguishes creating a room from updating one, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-room' or 'get-room'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Always ask for a userId', which hints at authentication or user context needs, but doesn't describe what a thread is, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a creation 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action, consisting of two concise sentences. There's no unnecessary verbosity, and each sentence serves a purpose (stating the action and providing a usage tip). However, the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a Liveblocks thread is, what the parameters mean, what the tool returns, or any behavioral traits. For a creation tool with such schema complexity, more context is needed to be 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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no information about the parameters 'roomId' or 'data', leaving their purpose and format completely undocumented. It mentions 'userId' but only as a guideline, not as a parameter explanation. This fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a Liveblocks thread'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create-comment' by specifying it's for threads, not comments. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'edit-thread-metadata' or 'mark-thread-as-resolved' in terms of thread lifecycle stages.
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 provides some guidance with 'Always ask for a userId', which implies a prerequisite or best practice. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-comment' or 'create-room', nor does it mention any exclusions or specific contexts where this tool is preferred.
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 deletion, implying it's destructive, but doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on behavioral implications (e.g., irreversibility), required permissions, error conditions, or what constitutes success. For a tool that permanently deletes data, more contextual guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description doesn't compensate by explaining the 'userId' parameter. It doesn't clarify what the userId represents (e.g., whose settings are deleted) or provide any semantic context beyond what's inferred from the tool name. With one undocumented parameter, the baseline score of 3 reflects minimal adequacy, as the description adds no value over the 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 the action ('Delete') and resource ('Liveblocks notification settings'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'update-notification-settings' by specifying deletion rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what gets deleted (e.g., all settings vs. per-user), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-notification-settings' or 'delete-room-subscription-settings'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether settings must exist first, or contextual factors like user permissions. This leaves the agent with minimal direction for appropriate 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 the tool deletes a room, implying a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical details like permissions required, whether deletion is permanent, what happens to associated data (e.g., threads, comments), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource efficiently, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, return values, or usage context, leaving the agent poorly equipped to invoke it correctly in a real-world scenario.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies 'roomId' is needed but doesn't explain its format, source, or constraints. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any parameter guidance beyond implication reduces it to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a Liveblocks room'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-thread' or 'delete-comment', but the resource specificity is adequate for basic 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete-thread' or 'delete-comment', nor does it mention prerequisites or consequences. It simply states what the tool does without context for decision-making.
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 deletion but doesn't specify whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., deleting associated comments). This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and resource efficiently, making it easy to parse without wasted verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical details such as behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, permissions), return values, and error conditions, which are essential for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the two required parameters (roomId, threadId) are undocumented in both schema and description. However, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, but here it's low, so the description fails to compensate, resulting in a minimal score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a Liveblocks thread'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'delete-comment' or 'delete-room', which follow the same pattern for 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., thread existence), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'delete-room' or 'mark-thread-as-resolved', 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.
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 retrieves active users but doesn't describe what 'active' means, whether this is real-time or cached data, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what format the response takes. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'active users' means in this context, what data is returned, or any behavioral characteristics. The description should provide more context given the lack of structured documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'room' which aligns with the 'roomId' parameter in the schema, but adds no additional semantic context about what a roomId is, format requirements, or where to find it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides minimal compensation for the undocumented parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a Liveblocks room's active users'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get-room' or 'get-thread-participants', but the specificity of 'active users' provides some differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-room' or 'get-thread-participants', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage. It simply states what the tool does without any 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 full burden. It states 'Get a Liveblocks room' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what data is returned (e.g., metadata, status), error conditions (e.g., invalid room ID), or performance aspects (e.g., rate limits). The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'getting a room' entails (e.g., returns room details, configuration, or status), potential side effects, or error handling. For a tool in a collaborative environment like Liveblocks, more context is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema—no explanation of what 'roomId' represents, its format, or where to obtain it. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher; the description doesn't worsen understanding but fails to enhance it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a Liveblocks room'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-rooms' (plural) by specifying retrieval of a single room, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other read operations like 'get-thread' or 'get-comment'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid room ID), contrast with 'get-rooms' for listing multiple rooms, or specify use cases like retrieving room metadata versus active data. The description offers only the basic function without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return value contains (e.g., document structure, metadata). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of retrieving a storage document, no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information. It doesn't explain what 'roomId' represents, its format, or constraints. Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate, but with only one parameter, the baseline is slightly higher than minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a Liveblocks storage document'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get-yjs-document', which appears to serve a similar retrieval function for a different document type, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with siblings like 'get-room' and 'get-yjs-document' that might overlap in retrieval scenarios, the lack of differentiation leaves usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what data is returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Liveblocks thread' is, what data is returned, or any behavioral context. For a tool in a complex collaboration system with many siblings, this minimal description leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no parameter information beyond what the schema shows (roomId and threadId). With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining what these IDs represent, their format, or where to find them. However, since there are only 2 parameters and the tool name implies retrieval by ID, a baseline of 3 is appropriate despite the lack of added semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a Liveblocks thread'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-threads' (plural) or 'get-thread-participants', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-threads' (list threads) and 'get-thread-participants' (get participants of a thread), the description offers no context about when this specific 'get-thread' operation is appropriate versus those other retrieval 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return data looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a user-specific settings retrieval tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, response format, error handling, and how it differs from similar sibling tools, making it inadequate for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'user's room subscription settings', which implies the 'userId' parameter is needed to identify the user, adding some semantic context beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't clarify the format or constraints of 'userId' (e.g., whether it's an email, ID, or something else), so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'user's room subscription settings', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get-room-subscription-settings', which appears to be a similar tool without the user focus, leaving room for confusion about when to use one versus the other.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get-room-subscription-settings' and 'update-room-subscription-settings' present, there is no indication of prerequisites, context, or distinctions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool performs a mutation ('Mark'), implying it changes thread state, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the action is reversible, error conditions, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature, 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, error handling, and expected outcomes. For a tool that modifies thread state, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the tool name. The three required parameters (roomId, threadId, data with userId) are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving their semantics unclear. The description fails to explain what these parameters represent or how they should be used.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Mark') and resource ('a Liveblocks thread'), specifying the target state ('as unresolved'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'mark-thread-as-resolved' by explicitly mentioning the opposite state, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for marking threads unresolved, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit-thread-metadata' or prerequisites. It doesn't mention the sibling 'mark-thread-as-resolved' as an alternative or specify contexts where this tool is appropriate, leaving usage context inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to existing room properties not mentioned in the update. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 maximally concise with a single sentence containing exactly 5 words. Every word earns its place by specifying the action and target resource without any redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and moderate schema description coverage (60%), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'updating a room' entails beyond the basic verb, doesn't mention behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, and provides no context about the update operation's scope or limitations.
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 description doesn't mention any parameters, but the input schema has 60% description coverage with detailed explanations for defaultAccesses, groupsAccesses, and usersAccesses parameters. The schema descriptions provide clear examples and permission options, while metadata and roomId lack descriptions. Since schema coverage is moderate (60%) and the description adds no parameter information, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the schema's quality documentation for most parameters elevates this to 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a Liveblocks room'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update-room-id' or 'update-room-subscription-settings' that also modify room properties, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific update tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple room-related update tools in the sibling list (update-room-id, update-room-subscription-settings), there's no indication of which specific room properties this tool modifies versus others. No prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases are mentioned.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/liveblocks/liveblocks-mcp-server'

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